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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds extensive behavioral detail: authentication requirements, paid plan for thorough depth, never-invented gaps, resolvable pipeworx:// citations, contradictions scanning, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. No statement contradicts 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?

The description is long but dense and front-loaded with the most important caveat (account required, fallback to ask_pipeworx). Each paragraph serves a distinct operational purpose, though a few details are repeated and the overall length could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully sets expectations for results: findings packet, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, hop, gaps[], contradictions[], semantic excerpting, latency, and failure modes. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 schema already covers both parameters at 100%, and the description goes further by clarifying that question can be broad/multi-part and by elaborating the depth enum behavior: quick=3 single-hop facets, standard adds gap recovery and contradictions, and thorough adds paid iterative chasing and contradictions. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: it performs grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and routing them in parallel. It also explicitly contrasts itself with ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: it is best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, while single lookups and breaking/current-news topics should use ask_pipeworx. It also documents the account requirement, paid depth tier, fallback behavior, and depth-level differences.

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