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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: explicit gaps[] for unanswerable facets, stable pipeworx:// citations, contradictions[] for standard/thorough depths, semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, and expected latency ranges. It even discloses the account/payment requirement, which annotations cannot express. No statement 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 wisely front-loaded with the account requirement and the primary alternative before explaining the internal mechanism. It contains some redundancy, especially the repeated 'it works on every tier' phrase, and several dense parentheticals that slow parsing. Overall, nearly every sentence earns its place, but it could be tightened without losing value.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description spells out the findings packet contents, citation behavior, gap handling, contradiction behavior, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. Combined with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it, how to set depth, and what to expect in response. No critical operational fact appears 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to both parameters. For depth, it explains the behavioral difference between quick, standard, and thorough including the paid requirement and the gap-recovery/contradiction passes. For question, it stresses that broad and multi-part questions are appropriate because decomposition is the point. This enriches the schema rather than merely restating it.

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 names a specific, distinctive operation: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources, with question decomposition, parallel routing, and a findings packet as the return value. It explicitly contrasts with open-web search and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups. This goes well beyond a generic verb+resource statement and makes the tool's identity 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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when not to ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'). It also provides a conditional account gate: unsigned-in agents should use ask_pipeworx, and the paid tier is called out for depth:thorough. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative, so route selection is unambiguous.

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