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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already present, the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the tool is a dispatcher which auto-fills arguments, and that results come back as structured answers with citation URIs. It explicitly discloses the 'even if web search could also answer it' behavior. No failure-mode or citation-rendering details are given, but nothing contradicts the 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 (~220 words) but front-loaded with the key routing decision ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and organized in a logical flow: positioning, behavior, triggers, examples, sibling routing. The domain list and examples earn their place for a meta-tool spanning 5,798 tools. The alias sentence is redundant with the fully-covered schema and could be trimmed, preventing a 5.

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 tool with one required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers invocation essentials: what to pass (a natural-language question), what happens internally (routing and argument filling), and what to expect back (structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs). The only gap is guidance on how to surface citations to the end user, which is a presentation concern rather than an invocation blocker.

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% — the question parameter and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's final sentence about aliases largely duplicates that schema information. It adds no format, length, or quality constraints beyond what the worked examples already convey.

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 behavior: it routes the question to the right one of 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This clearly distinguishes it from the generic 'ask' name and from its siblings (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded). The domain enumeration plus six concrete examples make the scope 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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'how much', 'current'), an affirmative over-inclusion rule ('even if web search could also answer it'), and a default routing instruction ('START HERE for most questions'). It names two alternatives with their selection conditions: ask_pipeworx_beta for faster/cheaper, ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded citations to incumbent providers. This is the strongest possible when-to-use guidance.

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