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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds a large amount of non-redundant behavioral context: account/paid-tier requirements, honest-gap semantics ("explicit gaps[] ... never invented"), contradiction[] behavior for standard/thorough, citation_uri fetchability guarantees, semantic excerpting of large records, and latency bounds (15-60s / ~90s). Nothing in the description 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 dense and front-loaded with the account requirement and sibling routing, but it is a ~400-word wall of text with visible redundancy: the latency expectation appears twice, depth behavior is fragmented across three separate sentences plus the schema, and one passage reads like an internal thought artifact ("depth:"standard" says: if you get gaps back, re-angular your question and try again"). Every sentence carries information, but the organization is loose and would benefit from clear sections.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: findings packet fields (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at), stable pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri resolvability. For a complex tool with 2 params and 3 depth modes, everything an agent needs to call it correctly — auth, alternatives, semantics, latency — is present.

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 adds operational meaning beyond the schema's enum text — e.g., the consequence of choosing each depth (hop count, latency, paid plan for thorough) and the practical loop "If you get gaps after two hops you can refine or move to ask_pipeworx." It also confirms the question param tolerates broad/multi-part phrasing. Not a 5 because much of the depth detail restates the schema's enum descriptions rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call" and explicitly says "this is NOT open-web search," which disambiguates it from a generic web-research tool. It differentiates itself from siblings by name — "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead" — so an agent can select it 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data" with concrete examples, and explicit when-not-to-use: "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead," plus a prerequisite-based exclusion ("If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier"). The alternative tool is named, so no inference is required.

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