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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it decomposes into facets, routes in parallel across 5,724 tools, returns verbatim evidence + confidence + gaps[] (never invented), includes contradictions[] for standard/thorough, uses semantic excerpting, and gives latency expectations. It also flags the paid-plan requirement for depth:'thorough'. No contradiction with 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 and dense but front-loaded with the account prerequisite and routing fallback, which are critical for invocation. It contains some redundancy around citations (pipeworx:// is mentioned more than once), but nearly every sentence adds selection-relevant behavioral information, so it earns more than a minimum-viable score.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values, and it does comprehensively: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and latency. It also covers auth, cost tier, and when the result will be mostly empty gaps[], so an agent has what it needs to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents the depth enum and question. The description adds behavioral value beyond the schema: it explains what depth:'standard' does ('re-angles unanswered facets'), what depth:'thorough' adds ('chases leads + recovers gaps'), that thorough requires a paid plan, and that broad/multi-part questions are acceptable because 'decomposition is the point.'

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 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search. It also differentiates from siblings by saying 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and by naming the conditions for using ask_pipeworx instead.

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 explicitly says 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and tells the agent when to prefer ask_pipeworx: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also gives auth-based routing guidance: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier.'

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