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

The description discloses behavior beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it explains that the tool routes to internal tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. It adds context about the scope of data and the citation mechanism, which is not present in 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 longer than necessary and contains redundancy, notably 'even if web search could also answer it' appearing twice. It is front-loaded with the key preference instruction, but the repetition and extensive example list could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 broad tool with no output schema, the description does a reasonable job: it explains what kind of answers to expect (structured answers with citations), gives domain coverage, and provides multiple examples. It does not cover limitations or error handling, but the examples and scope make it fairly complete for agent use.

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?

The schema already provides a 100% description of all parameters, including aliases and a clear definition of 'question'. The description adds examples of valid questions, which is helpful, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 states the tool's function: it routes questions to one of 5,908 tools across 1,540 sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It enumerates the domains it covers (SEC filings, FDA data, FRED/BLS, etc.) and differentiates itself from web search, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' plus a list of trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', etc.) and examples. It names web search as an alternative and says to use Pipeworx even if web search could answer. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or how to choose among the Pipeworx sibling variants.

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