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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for the description is lower. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool routes internally, fills arguments automatically, returns structured answers, and provides stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not describe edge cases like failure behavior when no source matches, but it gives enough beyond the annotations.

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 long, but it is dense with actionable routing rules and is front-loaded with the most important directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). Each section earns its place, though the list of domains and examples could arguably be trimmed without losing core 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 router with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs: what to send, what to expect back (structured answer with citations), how it differs from alternatives, and what triggers its use. It does not discuss failure modes or how citations should be consumed, but for a single-question tool this is acceptably complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single main 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description reinforces that natural-language questions are expected and gives concrete examples, but it does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('routes the question'), a resource ('one of 5,714 tools across 1,495 verified sources'), and the scope of supported queries. It also differentiates itself from key siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can tell which tool is the general-purpose entry point.

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 to prefer it over web search, provides trigger phrases and examples, declares 'START HERE for most questions', and names alternatives with the conditions for stepping up: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers and deep_research for broad/multi-part questions. This is strong when-to-use guidance with clear exclusions.

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