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

Annotations cover only safetty hints; the description carries the full behavioral load and discloses the auth gate, paid tier for thorugh, return-packet fields, gaps[] and contradictions[], never-invented evidence, semantically excerpted long records, citation_uri resolvability, and expected 15-90s latency. Nothing 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 nearly every sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact: auth, scope, exclusions, depth mechanics, citation behavior, and timing. It is front-loaded with the gating condition and the NOT-open-eb-search warning. It loses a point only for density — an agent must parse several stacked clauses — though not for waste.

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 explains the full results packet: evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, hop field, gaps[], contradictions[], and citation_uri resolvability. It covers auth, paid plan, timeout expectations, and the fallback sibling, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by tying depth levels to account plans and latency, clarifying that broad/multi-part questions are accepted, and explaining how 'standard' and 'thorough' waveform gap-recovery hops and contradiction scans affect the result. Not a 5 because the schema descriptions for both parameters were already rich.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1506 STRUCTURED data sources in one call, with decomposition and parallel routing across 5,767 tools. It distances itself from open-ewb search and from single-lookup siblings by naming ask_pipeworx and the live-news route, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling list 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?

Explicitly resolves the central choice: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier.' It then contrasts against a single lookup ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx') and gives concrete example questions for which deep_research is best. It also explains when to choose 'standard' vs 'thorough' via the gap-recovery and iterative hops.

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