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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it routes across 5,743 tools and 1,500 verified sources, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, and is one fast call. It does not disclose failure modes or caveats, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 information-dense: it front-loads the primary directive, lists supported domains, gives examples, states the default-entry position, and names escalation paths. Each sentence earns its place; the structure is scannable despite the length.

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 is remarkably complete: it defines the answer format (structured with citations), explains when to use it, when not to use alternatives, what it routes through, and provides representative example queries. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly in most situations.

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% and all six parameters are documented aliases of 'question', so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description reinforces natural-language phrasing and gives concrete examples, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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 states a clear verb+resource: ask a natural-language question and Pipeworx routes it to the right tool, returning a structured answer with citation URIs. It also explicitly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by naming their distinct behaviors.

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 for data-oriented questions, use for 'what is', 'look up', 'get the latest', factual questions, and START HERE as the default entry point. It also names concrete alternatives for escalation: 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.