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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: account gating and paid tier requirements, 15–90s latency, gap recovery, contradictions[], and the guarantee that findings are never invented. It also explains the semantics of citations and semantic excerpting, which go well beyond 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; nearly every sentence carries operational value, including preconditions, alternatives, output format, and latency. However, it is not cleanly sectioned, and depth details appear in the middle, so an agent scanning quickly might miss constraints like the paid requirement for thorough.

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 thoroughly covers return values: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop. It also covers prerequisites, alternatives, latency, and scale, making it self-sufficient for a complex tool.

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 a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds meaning to the question parameter by noting that broad/multi-part questions are fine and decomposition is the point, and it reinforces depth's hop behavior. Since the schema already describes both parameters in detail, the marginal value is modest but still present.

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: it researches broad/multi-part questions across structured data sources and returns a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes this from open-web search and names sibling ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups, giving the tool a distinct identity.

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 says when to use it (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not (single lookups should use ask_pipeworx; if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx). It also gives guidance on depth selection, with quick/standard/thorough described in terms of hops and gap recovery, so an agent can route correctly.

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