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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it routes internally, auto-fills arguments, returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, and makes a single fast call. No contradictions with 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 longer than average but front-loaded with the most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and organized into clear sections: scope, examples, and escalation paths. It is somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'START HERE' restates the default entry point) but each sentence carries useful routing or selection information.

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 simple single-parameter router with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly which question types to route here, provides six concrete examples, names the alternatives and when to step up, and states the return format (structured answer with citations). Nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question'. The description adds examples of valid questions but does not explain parameter behavior beyond what the schema already specifies, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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, specific purpose: routes natural-language questions to the appropriate one of 5,743 tools across 1,500 verified sources and returns a structured, cited answer. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'START HERE' and framing itself as the default entry point, distinct from ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the user asks...' with a list of phrasings and concrete examples. It also gives when-not-to-use guidance by directing to ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers and deep_research for broad/multi-part questions, plus a note on breaking-news coverage.

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