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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it discloses that the tool routes to other tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by a compact list of domains, trigger phrases, and examples. Every sentence provides distinct value, and the length is justified by the breadth of the routing tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly compensates by stating that the result is a structured answer with citations. It covers supported domains, triggers, and examples. It does not explicitly address what happens if no matching tool is found, but for a general-purpose router, the provided context is nearly complete.

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?

All six parameters are aliases for the same natural-language question, and the schema covers them completely (100% coverage). The description adds practical semantic value by showing the variety of accepted query phrasings and domain-specific examples, which helps the agent formulate the question parameter correctly.

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 purpose: a natural-language router that answers factual questions by selecting from 5,908 tools across 1540 verified sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from web search and gives concrete domains (SEC filings, FDA, FRED, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 directions: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'START HERE for most questions.' It also lists triggering phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'how much', 'current') and provides six example queries, making the when-to-use decision trivial for an agent.

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