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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the tool routes questions to other tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, plus noting it works on every tier and is a fast default entry point.

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 but densely packed with actionable guidance: usage triggers, examples, sibling routing, and caveats. It is front-loaded with the key 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' directive and organized into logical segments, though a few phrases such as 'START HERE for most questions' are slightly redundant with earlier statements.

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 no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, concrete examples, expected output format (structured answer with citation URIs), alternatives, and even pricing/tier notes. An agent has enough context to select this tool correctly without further inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the question parameter fully documented and aliases listed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples and clarifies the question can be a natural-language request, but it does not significantly expand on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 verb and resource: it answers factual questions by routing them to Pipeworx's 5,743 tools across 1,500 verified sources. It clearly distinguishes itself from web search and its siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

The description is explicit about when to use this tool: for factual questions about real-world data, with trigger phrases like 'look up,' 'find,' and 'current,' and even says to prefer it over web search. It also gives concrete step-up conditions: use ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers and deep_research for broad/multi-part questions.

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