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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool fills arguments automatically, returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, and is a single fast call. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but those are secondary for a read-only query tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: preference over web search, scope, mechanism, trigger phrases, examples, default positioning, alternatives, and a news caveat. It is front-loaded with the most important routing directive and remains structured and skimmable despite its 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent receives: a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also covers coverage scope, typical triggers, alternative escalation paths, and performance characteristics. Minor omissions like pagination or rate limits are acceptable given the tool's single-question interface.

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 covers all six parameters at 100% as aliases for 'question', so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by stating the tool 'fills arguments' — clarifying the agent only needs to supply a natural-language question — and by providing concrete examples of accepted queries. This goes beyond the schema's alias list.

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 precise verb and resource: it routes a question to one of 5,724 tools across 1,497 verified sources and returns structured answers with citations. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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', 'Use whenever the user asks...'), declares this the default entry point, and names concrete alternatives with the conditions for stepping up: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers and deep_research for broad multi-part questions. It even clarifies that breaking-news questions are already covered here.

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