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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that this tool routes to other tools, auto-fills arguments, returns pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, and is a single fast call. This is precisely the router behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the critical 'prefer over web search' instruction, then gives scope, trigger phrases, examples, default behavior, alternative routing, and an edge case. The structure is organized and decision-relevant, with no filler or tautology.

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 no-output-schema router tool with 6 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what happens to the question (routing, argument filling), what the answer looks like (structured with citation URIs), when to use it, when to escalate, and what domains it covers. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters and their aliases are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the input is a natural-language question and gives representative examples, but adds no additional parameter-level semantics 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, specific purpose: answer factual/real-world questions by routing to the right tool from 5,724 tools across 1,497 verified sources and returning cited structured answers. It also clearly distinguishes itself from web search and from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever the user asks...', 'START HERE for most questions', and precise escalation conditions to ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research. It even addresses edge cases like breaking news, making when-to-use versus alternatives unambiguous.

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