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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral detail: findings packet composition (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation), explicit gaps[] for unanswered facets, a never-invented guarantee, hop/gap-recovery mechanics for depths, contradictions[] output, 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 long, but every sentence carries operational weight: auth requirements, alternatives, behavioral guarantees, output shape, and latency. It front-loads the critical account and fallback guidance before the mechanism details. Slightly sprawling as one block, but not redundant.

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 present, the description fully compensates by describing the findings packet, gaps[], contradictions[], resolvable citations, and latency expectations. For a complex tool with only two parameters, an agent has enough 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by explaining depth semantics (quick/standard/thorough, hop counts, paid tier), noting that question can be broad and multi-part because decomposition is the point, and tying depth to latency. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's enum descriptions.

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 1500 STRUCTURED data sources" — and explicitly differentiates itself with "this is NOT open-web search." It names the sibling alternative ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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?

Contains explicit routing rules: "Best for broad/multi-part questions," "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx," and "For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx." It also provides an account-gating fallback: if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead. These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions.

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