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

The description discloses that the tool returns structured answers with citations (pipeworx:// URIs) and 'fills arguments' automatically. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by explaining the invocation behavior and output format. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but those are largely covered by the read-only and idempotent hints, so the bar is lowered.

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 core instruction and organized logically, but it is verbose and repeats information (e.g., the routing sentence appears twice, the list of domains is long). It could be tightened without losing meaning, so it earns a middle score for conciseness.

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?

The description is exceptionally complete for a broad query tool: it covers when to prefer it, what it returns (citations), how to step up to more specialized tools, provides concrete example questions, and explains alias handling. It also notes that it covers breaking news via live news packs, leaving no major contextual gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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 schema describes all six parameters, but the description adds crucial semantic clarification: 'Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.' This tells the agent that all these parameters are interchangeable synonyms for the required 'question', which is not fully explicit in the schema alone. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches that coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Routes the question to the right one of 5,801 tools across 1517 verified sources' and returns 'structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making its role unmistakable.

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 for questions about...' and 'START HERE for most questions'. It also specifies when to step up to alternatives ('for a hallucination-resistant single answer... use ask_pipeworx_grounded; for a broad/multi-part question... use deep_research'), leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus others.

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