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

The annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: it routes to thousands of tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. It also explains the intended precedence over web search.

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 its most important directive, includes compact categories and example queries, and every sentence earns its place by helping an agent decide when to use and when not to use the 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?

For a natural-language routing tool with no output schema, it is fully complete: it covers when to use it, what kinds of questions it answers, what it returns, and how it relates to a sibling tool. An agent has everything needed to select and 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description says 'fills arguments' and gives examples, but does not add substantial parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Routes the question to the right one of 5,908 tools... and returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It also clearly differentiates from siblings by saying to use ask_pipeworx_grounded when a prior answer cites a pipeworx:// URI.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever the user asks...', and even gives a concrete exclusion: 'if a prior answer cites a pipeworx:// URI use ask_pipeworx_grounded on that URI instead.' This is model-level routing guidance, not just a vague description.

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