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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes well beyond those by disclosing auth requirements, latency expectations, gap handling with never-invented findings, contradiction scanning, citation URI fetchability, and semantic excerpting of large records. None of this contradicts 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 long but dense, with all major information front-loaded: auth, alternative tool, core behavior, and use cases come first. Most sentences earn their place by adding a distinct behavioral or selection-relevant detail, though a bulleted structure would improve scannability slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the burden of explaining what the caller will receive: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop field. It also covers latency, auth, and decompositions. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some useful framing around natural-language multi-part questions and depth behavior, but the depth semantics are largely duplicated from the schema. It does not substantially increase parameter understanding beyond the structured schema.

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 states the tool's specific job: grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's structured data sources, with decomposition and parallel routing. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting 'this is NOT open-web search' and by directing single-lookup questions to ask_pipeworx instead. The purpose is concrete and distinguishable without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and not for single lookups, which should use ask_pipeworx. It also handles the auth boundary by directing unsigned users to ask_pipeworx and noting that 'thorough' depth requires a paid plan. This is clear and actionable routing.

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