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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing routing behavior, argument filling, and citation-bearing structured answers. It stops short of describing failure modes or uncertain cases, so 4 rather than 5.

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 every sentence contributes: the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' is front-loaded, followed by domains, behavior, examples, and alternatives. There is no filler or redundancy with structured fields.

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 router tool with one required natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what the answer looks like, and which sibling tools to choose instead. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly across a wide range of factual queries.

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 earns a 4 by clarifying that the parameter should contain a full natural-language factual question and that the tool fills downstream arguments itself, reinforced by multiple realistic examples. The aliases are already documented in 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 specific role: route a natural-language question to one of 5,801 tools across 1,517 verified sources and return a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It clearly differentiates the tool from alternatives such as ask_pipeworx_beta, 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?

It explicitly says to prefer this over web search for factual, current, or historical data, lists trigger phrases and concrete examples, and gives guidance to use ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research for open-ended or multi-part questions and ask_pipeworx_beta for experimental use. This gives the agent explicit selection rules.

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