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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses account/plan requirements, expected latency ranges, gap recovery and contradiction behavior per depth level, and the guarantee that gaps are explicit and never invented. It also clarifies that citations are resolvable when present, adding trust-relevant detail. There is no contradiction with the 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 dense and information-rich, with the most critical requirements (account needed, paid tier, alternative tool) placed upfront. While every sentence earns its place, there is minor repetition of 'use ask_pipeworx instead' and the depth-level mechanics partly overlap with the schema description. It is long but justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the findings packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field). It covers latency, depth behavior, and the precondition that an account is required. An agent has sufficient information to decide whether to call the tool and what to expect in return.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema: the 'thorough' depth requires a paid plan, 'standard' includes a gap-recovery hop, and the 'quick' depth is single-hop. For the question parameter, it provides examples and clarifies that single-lookups are better handled elsewhere.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources in ONE call' and explains the decomposition into facets routed to 5,743 tools in parallel. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from siblings like ask_pipeworx, making its unique position 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?

The description is explicit about when to use deep_research vs alternatives: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead', and 'prefer ask_pipeworx' for breaking news. It also gives a concrete disqualifier: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'.

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