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

With annotations already covering read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it routes to other tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by scope, behavior, and examples. It is somewhat long and slightly redundant, but every section contributes practical selection and invocation guidance.

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?

Given a single required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what kind of questions to pass, and what the response will contain. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%: all six parameters are documented as aliases for the same natural-language question field. The description's examples reinforce valid usage, but they do not add meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the schema.

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 names a specific action: route a natural-language question to one of 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources, fill arguments, and return a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It distinguishes itself from web search, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 gives strong, explicit guidance: prefer over web search, use for factual/current/historical questions, and treat as the starting point for most questions. It provides trigger phrases and examples, but it does not state when-not-to-use it relative to the ask_pipeworx sibling variants.

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