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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it routes to 5,743 tools across 1,500 verified sources, fills arguments automatically, returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and works on every tier in one fast call. This meaningfully enriches the annotation-only safety profile without contradicting it.

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 densely informative, with the most critical routing guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') front-loaded. The examples and alternative-routing statements each earn their place, though some phrases like 'works on every tier' and 'even if web search could also answer it' are slightly redundant.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: domains covered, query phrasing patterns, concrete examples, fallback/alternative tools, expected behavior (citations, argument filling), and scope. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and already documents the question field plus all aliases. The description adds illustrative query types and examples, but does not clarify parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 verb+resource: routes a natural-language question to the right specialized tool and returns a structured answer with citations. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by naming them and explaining when to step up.

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 strong when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search for factual/current/historical data, use for common question phrasings like 'what is', 'look up', 'find', and includes concrete examples. It also names exclusions and alternatives: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers and deep_research for broad multi-part questions.

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