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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: 15-60s latency (up to ~90s for thorough), gaps[] are never invented, contradictions[] appear for standard/thorough, findings carry a hop field, citation_uri is only emitted when resources/read can actually serve it, and large records are semantically excerpted rather than head-truncated. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the account requirement, which is appropriate, but the body is a single dense paragraph with stacked parentheticals and repeated ask_pipeworx guidance across three separate sentences. Nearly every fact is useful, but the redundancy and run-on structure make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does: a findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citations, hop fields, gaps[], and contradictions[]. Combined with latency expectations and plan gating, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 schema already defines question, its aliases, and the depth enum. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, and 'standard' is the default that performs gap recovery plus a contradictions scan. Marginal but real added value over an already-complete 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('grounded multi-source research across 1853 structured data sources') and immediately negates the most likely misread: 'this is NOT open-web search.' It also describes the mechanism (facet decomposition, parallel routing to 7,133 tools, findings packet with evidence/confidence/citation/gaps), so an agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx without opening a 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?

Explicit routing rules: use for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup, prefer ask_pipeworx for breaking or colloquial news topics because deep_research returns empty gaps[]. It also states the auth precondition (free account, paid plan required for depth:'thorough') and what to do when not signed in.

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