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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it routes the question, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable citation URIs. It doesn't go into error cases or response format details, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 strongest guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by explicit use cases, examples, and exclusions. Every sentence adds functional value, and nothing is redundant or filler.

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?

It fully addresses what the tool does, when to use it, what kind of input it accepts, and what output to expect (structured answers with citations). Since there is no output schema and the operation is read-only, the description is sufficient even though it doesn't mention potential latency or failure modes.

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 already covers all six aliases for the natural-language question, giving 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantic context by listing the kinds of questions and example inputs, reinforcing what the parameter should contain and how broadly it can be used.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'ask Pipeworx', and clearly explains that it routes questions to the right tool among 5,908 tools across 1540 verified sources. It also differentiates itself from general web search and sibling query/search tools by emphasizing authoritative structured data and stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.

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 explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', gives concrete question types and example queries, and states 'START HERE for most questions'. It also names exclusions: 'Do not use for follow-up questions' and directs internal/abstract reasoning to query, recall, or forget.

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