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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explains the tool's internal behavior: it routes to 5,798 tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns citation URIs. It also clarifies that even breaking-news questions are routed through ask_pipeworx, which adds useful behavioral context.

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 guidance and includes useful examples. It is slightly redundant—preferring web search is stated more than once, and deep_research is mentioned twice—but it generally earns its length.

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 single-parameter routing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: when to use it, what it does, what the return value looks like, and which sibling tool to use instead. There is no critical missing information for an agent selecting or invoking this tool.

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 describes the question parameter and aliases with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does supply helpful example questions and clarifies that a natural-language query is sufficient, but those examples add only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action: it routes questions to one of 5,798 tools across verified sources, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also explicitly positions itself against web search and names the sibling deep_research, so an agent can distinguish it from alternative tools.

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 factual, current, or historical questions, with lists of domains, trigger phrases, and concrete examples. It also names an alternative for broader research: 'use deep_research.'

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