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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent safety, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context — routing across 6,679 tools, argument filling, stable citation URIs, 'one fast call', works on every tier. It stops short of stating latency, rate limits, or failure modes when no source matches.

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?

Front-loaded with the key directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and the examples are useful, but it runs long with some redundancy — 'news' appears both in the source list and again in the closing news-feeds sentence, and the 'START HERE' theme is restated.

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 natural-language routing tool with no output schema, the description says enough about how it dispatches, what it returns (structured answer + citation URIs), and how it relates to siblings. An agent has everything needed to call 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% and the schema already documents the required 'question' field plus all seven aliases with their own descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: routes a natural-language question to the right one of 6,679 tools across 1759 sources and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citations. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and their distinguishing conditions, so an agent can separate it from alternatives without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions'), the trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'get the latest'), and when to step up to alternatives by name and condition. This is textbook routing guidance.

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