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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool routes to one of 5,767 tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also notes the relationship with ask_pipeworx_grounded and advises that a single call suffices for one-answer facts. It does not mention latency, failure modes, or cost, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 key 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' directive and is organized into usage guidance, examples, and sibling routing. It is somewhat long and contains overlapping phrasing, such as repeating 'current' and 'latest' in trigger phrases and examples, but nearly every sentence adds routing or behavioral value.

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 and no output schema, the description explains what it does, when to prefer it over web search, when to choose sibling tools, what the answer format looks like, and even provides representative examples. This is sufficient for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 all parameters documented as aliases of 'question'. The description reinforces natural-language input through examples and trigger phrases, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for questions about current or historical data' and enumerates concrete domains such as SEC filings, FDA data, FRED/BLS statistics, patents, real estate, weather, and more. This clearly identifies the tool as a general factual-data entry point and differentiates it from siblings like deep_research and 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 explicitly says 'START HERE for most questions', lists trigger phrases such as 'what is', 'look up', and 'get the latest', and gives multiple examples. It also states when to use alternatives: deep_research for multi-part synthesized reports, ask_pipeworx_grounded for strict source-level grounding, and search_within/list_subscriptions/discover_tools for subscription-related questions.

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