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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: account requirements and tier gating, latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), the gaps[] never-invented guarantee, contradictions[] scanning, semantically excerpted (not head-truncated) records, and the citation fetchability guarantee. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with the most critical gating info (ACCOUNT REQUIRED, fallback tool) before the core function. Every sentence carries real information and there is no filler, though the description is long and somewhat streams from one topic to another without clear sectioning; depth-tier details partially duplicate the schema enum description.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return packet (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[]), the citation resolvability contract, record excerpting behavior, and latency. For a complex 2-param tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (question and depth enum are fully described). The description adds value beyond the schema by attaching behavioral consequences to the depth parameter — paid requirement for 'thorough', contradictions[] availability per tier, latency variation — which helps an agent choose between enum values.

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 Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' with a precise mechanism (decomposes into facets, routes to 5,798 tools in parallel). Strongly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly declaring 'this is NOT open-web search' and naming ask_pipeworx as the single-lookup alternative.

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 when-to-use ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), when-not-to-use ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'), and an auth-based exclusion ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier'). Also discloses paid-tier gating for depth:'thorough'. Nothing is left to inference.

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