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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses the account and paid-tier requirements, the parallel routing model, the findings-packet shape (evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + gaps[] + contradictions[] + hop), citation resolvability, semantic excerpting behavior, and latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s). This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense and long, but front-loaded with the two critical facts (account requirement, fallback tool) and each subsequent clause earns its place by adding scope, output, routing, or latency detail. Minor redundancy in repeating ask_pipeworx for two distinct conditions, but justified by the tool's complexity.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns: findings packet contents, gaps[], contradictions[], hop fields, and citation_uri resolvability. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results 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 enum values are already documented, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that depth:"thorough" requires a paid plan and the timing/behavioral implications of each hop. Slightly above the baseline because it clarifies the tier gating the schema omits.

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+resource with scope: "Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1551 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call — this is NOT open-web search." It explicitly contrasts itself with the closest siblings (ask_pipeworx, open-web search), so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Names alternatives and the exact conditions that select them: "If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead"; "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx"; "For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx." It also states the best-fit case (broad/multi-part questions over structured data), leaving nothing to inference.

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