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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is raised, and the description clears it easily. It adds account/auth prerequisites, latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), output-packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, gaps[], contradictions[]), guaranteed-resolvable citations, the no-invention guarantee, and semantic excerpting behavior — none of which appears in 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 every section earns its place: the critical account gate and fallback tool are front-loaded, followed by scope, mechanism, output format, and timing. It loses one point for mild redundancy (the stable-citation claim is restated as 'enforceable... always fetchable') and a slightly rambling middle section.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: the findings packet fields, gaps[] semantics for unanswered facets, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, resolvable pipeworx:// citations, and timing. For a complex parallel-routing tool, nothing an agent needs to decide on or interpret the call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value on top: 'thorough' requires a paid plan, the question parameter can be broad/multi-part by design, and depth choices carry latency implications. This goes beyond what the enum descriptions in the schema provide.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1540 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call', with a concrete mechanism (decomposes into facets, routes to 5,908 tools in parallel). It also differentiates from siblings explicitly: 'this is NOT open-web search' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'. Example questions make the intended use unmistakable.

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 two concrete examples), explicit when-not-to-use ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), and an account-gating condition ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier'). It even disambiguates depth tiers by plan cost.

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