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

Goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, detailing the findings packet (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri), explicit gaps[] with never-invented behavior, depth-specific hop logic, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. 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?

The description is long and dense, but each sentence adds distinct value: auth, scope, output, usage guidance, depth differences, citation resolution, and latency. It is front-loaded with the most decision-critical facts (account requirement, single-lookup alternative), though it would benefit from tighter paragraphing.

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 characterizes the return packet (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field), so an agent knows exactly what to expect. Together with auth requirements, per-depth behavior, and latency bounds, nothing needed for correct invocation 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 covers both parameters 100%, including the depth enum semantics and the natural-language question description. The description adds only incidental context (paid plan for thorough) and repeats the schema's depth explanations without introducing new parameter-level meaning.

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 resource and behavior: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call', explicitly contrasting with open-web search. Distinguishes from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative, and the verb 'decomposes/routes' plus deliverables makes the function unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and two clear exclusion routes: single lookups use ask_pipeworx, breaking current-news topics use ask_pipeworx. Also covers the auth fallback ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'), leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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