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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), the description discloses dense behavior: findings are 'verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + a stable pipeworx:// citation', the tool 'never invented' answers and returns 'explicit gaps[]', standard/thorough return 'contradictions[]', large records are 'semantically excerpted to the passages relevant to each facet (not head-truncated)', and latency is bounded ('Expect 15-60s... up to ~90s'). None of this 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 every sentence earns its place: account gate, alternative routing, core mechanism, exclusion, output packet shape, depth semantics, citation resolvability, and timing. It is front-loaded with the most operationally critical fact (ACCOUNT REQUIRED; use ask_pipeworx if not signed in) before any marketing or mechanism detail.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the return shape and does so completely: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], the hop field, citation_uri resolvability ('a citation you get back is always fetchable'), auth tiers, and latency. An agent has everything needed to select depth, set expectations, 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 parameter's schema description already details hop counts, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine extras above that: the paid-plan gate on thorough, per-depth timing expectations, and worked examples of what makes a good question ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure'), which justify one point above baseline.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1495 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call', and explicitly draws the boundary 'this is NOT open-web search'. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming the alternative directly ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), so an agent can separate this from ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, and compare_entities without opening their schemas.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' states the positive condition, while 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' name the exact alternative and the conditions that trigger it. It also conditions depth selection on account tier: 'depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan'.

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