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

With only readOnlyHint=false, the description adds some real context: it names the return payload ('JSON string with per-step results') and explains how steps compose with the module/smart_* alias. However it says nothing about execution order, failure handling when a step errors, or side effects of the steps it orchestrates — meaningful gaps for an orchestrator that can invoke arbitrary tools.

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?

Labeled sections (Purpose / When to use / When NOT / Returns / Composes with) front-load the decision-relevant information with no filler sentences. Dense but every line carries routing or composition value.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained in depth, and the schema fully covers parameters. Combined with the explicit usage routing and composition note, an agent has what it needs to call it; only step-error behavior is left unaddressed.

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 url/text/query/steps/template are already documented, including the legacy 'args' alias. The description largely restates 'steps[].params (or legacy steps[].args) with tool = module or smart_* alias' without adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Run a multi-step pipeline') and immediately scopes it to 'built-in template or custom steps'. It distinguishes itself from the smart_* siblings by framing them as the single-step 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?

Explicitly gives both directions: use when several tools run in sequence (naming the research/read/remember templates), and do NOT use for a single step — call the specific smart_* tool instead. The alternative is named and the selecting condition is stated.

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