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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: an account/paid-plan prerequisite, expected latency (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), the findings-packet shape with confidence, source, fetched_at, and per-finding citations, the gaps[] no-invention guarantee, contradictions[] behavior, and semantic excerpting of long records.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the account requirement and the core one-call value proposition lead, and the fallback guidance follows. There is mild redundancy, since ask_pipeworx is recommended once for unsigned-in users and again for single lookups, but nearly every sentence carries routing or behavioral information.

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 high-complexity, multi-facet research tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, latency, the return packet structure, citation resolvability, gap and contradiction handling, and aliases, so an agent can call it and interpret results correctly without further reference material.

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 schema already defines the depth enum in facet terms, so the description's recap of hop behavior is largely redundant. It does add value the schema lacks, namely that depth:"thorough" requires a paid plan, which materially affects parameter choice.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: grounded multi-source research across structured data sources in one call, with an explicit negative boundary ("this is NOT open-web search"). It names the scope (1,945 sources, 7,393 tools, 7 parallel facets), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like ask_pipeworx without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, for unsigned-in users, and for breaking/colloquial current-news topics, with the reason stated (deep_research returns mostly empty gaps[] there). It also explains when to escalate depth from standard to thorough, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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