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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool routes to a large tool/source network, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, which goes 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 front-loaded with the key 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' instruction, but it contains clear redundancy: the 'START HERE for most questions — even if web search could also answer it. Examples: ...' phrasing appears multiple times. Not every sentence earns its place, making the description longer and less crisp than it should be.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core needs: when to use it, what it does, what it returns, examples, and when to choose alternatives. Minor gaps like error behavior or account requirements prevent a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by supplying rich examples of valid questions and listing the domains covered, which helps an agent understand what kinds of natural-language inputs are 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 names a specific verb and resource: it routes questions to one of 5,738 tools across 1,499 verified sources and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also differentiates itself from siblings by saying 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'START HERE for most questions,' making its role clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use for factual questions about real-world entities, events, or numbers, even if web search could answer them, with concrete examples. It also names alternatives for escalation: ask_pipeworx_grounded for evidence-perfect answers, deep_research for broad/multi-part questions, and notes ask_pipeworx already covers breaking news via news feeds.

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