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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it routes, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not add failure or edge-case behavior, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 dense and front-loaded with the most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by scope, mechanics, trigger phrases, and examples. It is slightly long and somewhat redundant ('even if web search could also answer it' rephrases the opening), but every sentence contributes useful selection and invocation information.

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 broad, read-only router tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it defines input scope, gives example questions, explains routing behavior, and describes the output format with citation URIs. It does not mention potential failure cases or how it differs from specialized siblings, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool confidently.

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 documents the single required question parameter and its aliases with 100% coverage. The description enriches this by specifying the range of acceptable queries—SEC filings, FDA data, weather, clinical trials, stocks, etc.—and giving concrete examples like 'current US unemployment rate' and 'adverse events for ozempic.'

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 that the tool routes a natural-language question to the right Pipeworx tool among 5,908 tools and returns a structured answer with citation URIs. It is explicit that this is a broad router and should be preferred over web search, but it does not directly distinguish itself from sibling variants like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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', 'Use whenever the user asks...', and 'START HERE for most questions.' It even states that this tool should be used even if web search could also answer, which removes ambiguity about selection.

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