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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema: it routes to a specific underlying toolset, fills arguments automatically, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, is 'one fast call', and works on every tier. This goes well beyond the annotation-only baseline, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or failure modes.

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 longer than average but every paragraph earns its place: the opening states dominance over web search, the middle gives examples and usage triggers, the closing routes to siblings with clear conditions. It is front-loaded with the most important directive. Slightly verbose in enumerating example domains, but not wasteful.

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 single-question routing tool, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what input to provide, what kind of output to expect (structured answer with citation URIs), and how it compares to siblings. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by summarizing the return format and the tool's wide coverage without leaving critical gaps.

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% and the 'question' parameter is already well-documented in the schema with natural-language semantics and alias names. The description adds value through concrete examples of valid questions ('current US unemployment rate', 'Apple's latest 10-K'), but these are illustrative rather than clarifying parameter syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully self-documenting 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 is explicit about the tool's purpose: it routes factual and data-related questions to 6,341 tools across 1,656 verified sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by labeling itself the default entry point and naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as specialized alternatives. The verb 'routes' and the resource 'questions... to verified sources' are specific.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions', and lists example query phrasings ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest'). It also states when to step up to alternatives: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, deep_research for broad/multi-part fan-out questions. This is textbook usage routing.

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