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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds a large amount of behavioral context beyond those hints: account/paid-tier requirements, decomposition and parallel routing, findings packet contents, explicit gaps[] with 'never invented', and degraded-success behavior when a source has a connectivity issue.

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 dense and long but earns its length for a complex multi-step tool. It front-loads the account prerequisite and alternative tool, then explains behavior and outputs; a couple of clauses (e.g., the connectivity degradation note) are convoluted.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, when to choose it, how it works, what the findings packet contains, and edge-case behavior. The schema covers depth semantics, so nothing necessary for an agent to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents question and depth in detail. The description contributes examples of good questions and notes that 'thorough' is paid, but the paid detail is also in the schema's depth enum description, so it does not add substantial semantic value.

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 anchors the tool with a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1540 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It further clarifies scope by stating 'this is NOT open-web search' and distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx for single lookups.

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?

It explicitly names when to use the tool ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when not to ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). It also gives a tier-based exclusion: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.'

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