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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: account/paid-tier requirements, parallel routing across 6,474 tools, gaps[]/contradictions[] semantics, hop and citation_uri fields, semantic excerpting of long records, and concrete latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s).

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 and the core value proposition, and each paragraph carries real information. It is long and mentions ask_pipeworx three times, which is mildly repetitive, but the density is justified for a tool with this much distinct behavior.

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 fully specifies the return shape (findings packet: evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop) and the failure mode (mostly empty gaps[] for out-of-catalog topics). Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is 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 schema already documents all nine parameters and the depth enum. The description still adds meaning beyond it — tying 'standard'/'thorough' to gap-recovery hops and the contradictions[] scan, and flagging that 'thorough' requires a paid plan — which goes past a pure baseline 3.

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 Pipeworx's 1685 STRUCTURED data sources') and explicitly scopes it ('this is NOT open-web search'), naming the domains covered. An agent can immediately tell this apart from ask_pipeworx and search_within without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes by condition: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, for a single lookup, and for breaking/colloquial current-news topics; use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated with named alternatives.

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