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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it routes to 5,724 tools, fills arguments, returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and is described as 'one fast call' that works on every tier.

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 front-loaded with the key mandate and then structured into scope, examples, and routing rules. Some repetition exists around 'prefer over web search', but each section earns its place by aiding tool selection.

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 default routing tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the use cases, alternatives, examples, and result shape (structured answer with citations). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how 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 documents all parameters at 100% coverage, including aliases for 'question'. The description adds value by specifying the kind of natural-language questions to pass and giving concrete examples of well-formed queries, which helps the agent formulate the single required parameter.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it routes factual questions to authoritative data sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It also differentiates itself from web search and from sibling tools by explicitly labeling itself as the default entry point.

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: factual questions, trigger phrases, and examples like 'current US unemployment rate'. It also states when to step up to ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research, and notes that breaking-news queries are already covered.

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