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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals the routing behavior (5,743 tools, 1,500 sources), argument filling, output shape (structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs), and speed ('one fast call'). It also implies a limitation by recommending ask_pipeworx_grounded when a hallucination-resistant answer with verbatim evidence is needed.

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 information-dense; every sentence provides actionable routing or behavioral context not found in the schema or annotations. It is front-loaded with the most important instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and organized logically from use cases to alternatives.

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?

Given that this is a high-level routing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers scenarios, input phrasing, expected output, and relationship to alternatives. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it, what to pass, and what to expect back.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the sole required parameter and its aliases, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples and trigger phrases illustrate the kind of natural-language input expected but add no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a clear purpose: pipeworx routes factual questions about a wide range of real-world topics to the appropriate source among thousands of tools and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It explicitly differentiates itself from web search and from sibling tools ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can identify when this tool is the right 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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions'), lists trigger phrases and examples, and tells when to choose alternatives instead ('Step up only when needed: ... ask_pipeworx_grounded ... deep_research'). It also addresses an edge case (breaking-news) and says ask_pipeworx already covers it, preventing unnecessary escalation.

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