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

Annotations already carry readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the account and paid-plan requirement for 'thorough', the never-invents guarantee (explicit gaps[]), the contradictions[] scan, latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), semantic excerpting instead of head-truncation, and the guarantee that citation_uri is only present when fetchable. No contradiction with 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?

Long, but every sentence earns its place — auth, routing, scope, depth semantics, citation guarantees, and latency are all distinct facts. The critical constraint (ACCOUNT REQUIRED) and the fallback sibling are front-loaded. It could be tightened slightly by consolidating the depth-hop sentences, but the density is justified for a tool with 3 depth modes and a complex pipeline.

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 correctly carries the burden of documenting the return format: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, hop field, citation_uri, gaps[], and contradictions[]. Auth, pricing, latency, edge-case behavior, and depth differences are all covered. An agent has everything needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the depth enum description already explains quick/standard/thorough semantics well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: the paid-plan constraint on 'thorough', hop-count behavior per depth, and latency implications. The question parameter needs no elaboration beyond the schema, which is fine because the schema covers it.

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 1499 STRUCTURED data sources' in ONE call, and explicitly disambiguates with 'this is NOT open-web search.' Example queries ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure') and a contrast with ask_pipeworx make its scope unmistakable even 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?

Textbook when/when-not guidance: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead,' 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data,' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' with the concrete reason that deep_research returns mostly empty gaps[] for non-catalog topics. The routing conditions and exclusions are explicit, not implied.

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