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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond those: paid-tier threshold, parallel decomposition across 5,908 tools, gap reporting with 'never invented' behavior, stable and resolvable citations, contradictions[] for standard/thorough depths, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. 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 front-loaded with critical auth and routing information, and the core behavior is explained early. It is somewhat redundant in the tail, repeating the one-call/one-packet concept, stable/resolvable citations, contradictions[], and even saying the depth parameter works 'exactly as in the schema,' which adds length without much new information.

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, yet the description thoroughly covers the return packet composition, gap behavior, contradiction scan, citation format, data scope, auth requirements, and timing expectations. An agent has enough context to select, invoke, and interpret results 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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter coverage and detailed descriptions for both question and depth, including facet counts and contradiction scans. The description adds practical extras like the paid requirement for 'thorough' and latency expectations, but largely restates what the schema already communicates, so it improves slightly rather than dramatically.

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 action ('Grounded multi-source research') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1540 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the sibling ask_pipeworx tool by noting it is for broad/multi-part research over structured data. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' It also states a hard prerequisite (account required, with paid plan for thorough) and provides a fallback tool if not signed in.

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