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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantive context beyond those annotations: it warns about latency (15-60s, up to ~90s), reveals that results include gaps[] when facets can't be answered, says it never invents findings, describes the citation/fetchability behavior, and discloses that large records are semantically excerpted. This is rich, accurate behavioral disclosure without contradicting 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: auth requirement, alternative tool, data scope, parallel routing, output packet, gaps behavior, depth semantics, citations, excerpting behavior, latency. The critical differentiator (NOT open-web search) is front-loaded. It is not concise in raw length, but it is dense with useful information and well-structured.

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?

Given this is a complex multi-tool research tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent would need: what inputs to use, what results look like, what gaps/contradictions mean, citation semantics, auth prerequisite, latency expectations, and a clear fallback path to ask_pipeworx. The tool has no output schema, so the description's detailed findings-packet explanation is essential and well-placed.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, with a detailed description of depth enum and question. The description adds only marginal semantic value beyond the schema: it elaborates on quick/standard/thorough behavior somewhat and connects depth to gap-recovery/contradiction scans. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description's extra context is a small bonus but not a huge lift.

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 opens with a verb ('research') and names a very specific resource ('Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources'), then immediately contrasts itself with open-web search and with ask_pipeworx. It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like ask_pipeworx by stating it is NOT open-web search and routes across 5,743 tools. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and why it differs.

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 explicitly says 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead' and gives strong usage signals: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data...' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx.' It also describes which depth tiers do what, so an agent can select depth correctly. This goes beyond typical usage guidance by naming the alternative and the condition.

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