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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description discloses rich behavioral context: it is NOT open-web search, it routes to tools in parallel, returns findings with gaps[] and contradictions[], includes hop fields, citation_uri that is only present when resolvable, and large records are semantically excerpted. It even discloses expected latency (15-90s) and account tier requirements. This far exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 requirements, purpose, usage guidance, depth semantics, citation resolvability, excerpting, and time expectations. It is front-loaded with the account requirement and follows a logical flow. While it is verbose, it is structured and dense with information, so not a 5 but still high.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-tool routing, multiple depth levels, citations, gap recovery, contradiction scanning) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs to call it correctly: expected input breadth, output packet structure, error cases (empty gaps[]), fetchability of citations, and time constraints. Nothing critical 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 both parameters. The description adds value by elaborating on the behavioral impact of each depth value ('standard re-angles unanswered gaps', 'thorough chases leads') and ties thorough to the paid plan, plus expected time. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, which are already detailed, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 (research) and resource (Pipeworx's structured data sources), and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx. It clearly defines what it does: decomposes questions, routes to 6,216 tools in parallel, and returns a findings packet. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from all siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', and when-not-to: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also names the exact alternative and the condition that selects it, plus the account-requirement fallback. No inference is needed.

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