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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: routing to verified sources, auto-filling arguments, returning stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, working on every tier, and being one fast call. It also hints at limitations by recommending grounded mode when hallucination resistance is critical.

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 key routing decision and alternative guidance. It is dense and useful, though slightly redundant: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE', and 'default entry point' all make the same point, and the domain list overlaps with the later trigger phrases.

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 tool with one free-text parameter and no output schema, the description explains when to use it, how to invoke it, and what to expect back ('structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs'). It does not detail the exact response shape or error/unsupported-query behavior, but those are minor for tool selection and invocation.

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 'question' parameter is well documented with aliases. The tool description adds value by offering many query examples and trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'get the latest'), which clarify the expected natural-language input 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 clearly defines a routing tool: it 'Routes the question to the right one of 5,743 tools' and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It is explicitly distinguished from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research. The verb + resource + outcome are specific and actionable.

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 opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and says 'START HERE for most questions'. It names concrete alternatives with conditions: use ask_pipeworx_grounded for a hallucination-resistant single answer, deep_research for multi-part questions. Trigger phrases and examples make the decision boundary explicit.

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