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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining that the tool routes to one of 5,724 tools, fills arguments automatically, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, and makes one fast call. No contradiction with 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 longer than typical, but it earns its length by packing in domain coverage, usage triggers, examples, and sibling-tool differentiation. It is front-loaded with the most important routing instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and every sentence contributes actionable 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?

For a general-purpose question-routing tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it states the return format (structured answer with citation URIs), the acceptable input style, the domain coverage, and the conditions for upgrading to grounded or deep research. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already defines the question parameter and aliases. The description adds value by providing multiple concrete query examples and phrase patterns ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest'), which clarifies what kind of natural-language input works.

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 identifies a specific purpose: answering factual/current/historical questions by routing to verified data tools and returning cited structured answers. It distinguishes itself from web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, naming exactly when those are the better choice.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer this over web search, lists trigger phrases and example questions, and gives concrete escalation rules: use ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers and deep_research for broad/multi-part questions. This leaves little ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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