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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool performs internal routing and argument filling across thousands of sources, and that responses include stable citation URIs. This helps set expectations, though it does not mention potential latency, failure modes, or how to interpret the citation URIs.

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 front-loaded with the core directive and organized into trigger phrases, domain lists, and examples. It loses some efficiency by repeating 'even if web search could also answer it' twice and stating 'START HERE' after the same idea was already conveyed, but overall it is dense and structured.

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 broad routing tool with a single required natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains scope, examples, behavior, and return-style with citation URIs. The main gap is lack of guidance on choosing among the sibling ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded tool variants.

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?

The schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete example phrasings ('current US unemployment rate', 'Apple's latest 10-K', 'adverse events for ozempic') that clarify acceptable natural-language forms and domain coverage beyond the schema text.

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 clearly identifies a specific purpose: a natural-language question router that 'routes the question to the right one of 5,884 tools across 1536 verified sources' and 'returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It is explicit about the resource and verb, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual/current/historical data, trigger phrases like 'what is', 'look up', 'get the latest', plus 'START HEEE for most questions.' However, it names only web search as an alternative and gives no when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with the ask_pipeworx_* siblings, so exclusions are incomplete.

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