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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds useful context beyond them: automatic argument filling, one fast call, works on every tier, stable citation URIs in output, and routing to live news packs for breaking topics. Minor gaps remain around latency and behavior when no source matches, but no contradiction with 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?

Longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place: domain coverage, trigger phrases, examples, tier positioning, and escalation paths all serve to differentiate from 33 siblings. The highest-value instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') is front-loaded, and the structure builds logically from default use to escalation.

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 routing tool with no output schema and 33 siblings, it is remarkably complete: explains return behavior (structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs), coverage domains, tier availability, one-call speed, escalation paths, and even the breaking-news edge case. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it and what to expect is missing.

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% — question plus five documented aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the contextual note that the tool 'fills arguments' automatically, which helps but does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific action and mechanism: routes the question to the right one of 5,874 tools across 1,533 verified sources and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. Clearly differentiates from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as distinct alternatives, and explicitly contrasts itself with web search.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'START HERE for most questions — this is the default entry point.' Provides trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'current'), concrete examples, and precise step-up conditions: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, deep_research for broad multi-part fan-out.

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