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 valuable context beyond those annotations: it explains the routing behavior, argument filling, source aggregation, and the stable citation URI format. It also indirectly signals a limitation by directing hallucination-resistant use cases to a different 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 front-loaded with the most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). It is longer than strictly necessary due to the extensive domain list and examples, but most sentences add useful selection or behavioral context. The 'default entry point, one fast call' phrasing is slightly clipped but not misleading.

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 complex meta-tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what it does, when to prefer it, when not to, what it returns, and what categories it covers. It also provides multiple concrete query examples and direct routing guidance to sibling tools, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage, describing the single question parameter and all aliases. The description does not add much per-parameter meaning, but it does reinforce that the input is a natural-language question and provides several concrete examples. This matches the baseline expected when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool's job: routes a question to the right one of 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also differentiates itself from siblings by calling itself the default starting point and naming when to step up to ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research.

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 strong when-to-use guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever the user asks...', 'START HERE for most questions', and even says to use it 'even if web search could also answer it.' It explicitly names alternatives for specific cases: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant verbatim answers with confidence, 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.