Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel decomposition, gap[] reporting, never-invented results, contradiction scans, hop field, citation_uri resolvability, semantic excerpting, and expected latency per depth. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense and front-loaded with the account requirement and alternative tool. Most sentences add unique value; minor repetition around depth behavior keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex research orchestration tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers authentication, alternatives, scope, process, return packet contents, gaps, contradictions, citation semantics, excerpting, and latency. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful depth-variant behavior beyond the enum: standard performs gap recovery, thorough chases leads and adds contradiction scanning, and thorough requires a paid plan. This goes beyond the schema but is somewhat lengthy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb and resource: it decomposes a question into facets, routes them across 5,798 tools, and returns a findings packet with citations and gaps. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names the sibling ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, with concrete examples. Also gives exclusion criteria: use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup or when not signed in. The account requirement and paid thorough tier are stated up front.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.