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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral insight by disclosing that it routes to 5,798 tools across 1,517 sources, fills arguments automatically, and returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This is valuable context beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the most important guidance, then covers mechanism, trigger phrases, and examples in a logical order. It is long but information-dense; minor repetition around 'even if web search could also answer it' keeps it just below a perfect structure score.

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?

With only one required natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool: what it does, when to prefer it, example inputs, and the return format with citation URIs. No critical context 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?

The input schema is fully documented, specifying the 'question' parameter and aliases like q, text, input, query, and prompt. The description provides helpful examples but no additional parameter-level semantics or constraints, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool routes natural-language questions to an appropriate source tool and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It also lists covered domains, making the purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling variants like ask_pipeworx_beta or 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 gives an explicit 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' directive, lists trigger phrases such as 'what is' and 'get the latest', and provides concrete example questions. It stops short of full 5 because it does not state when not to use the tool or how to choose between the ask_pipeworx siblings.

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