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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: internal routing mechanics, automatic argument filling, and the stable pipeworx:// citation URI return format. No contradiction with annotations — the non-destructive query behavior aligns with readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 long (~200 words) but every sentence carries routing value: the preference directive is front-loaded, followed by domain scope, behavior, trigger phrases, and examples. It is dense rather than padded, and the examples earn their place by giving the agent concrete pattern-matching targets.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (universal router over thousands of sources) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers almost everything an agent needs: purpose, usage triggers, domains, internal behavior, and return format (structured answer with citation URIs). The only gap is explicit exclusions relative to the beta and grounded sibling variants, though 'START HERE' partially mitigates this.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the question parameter and its five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description's example queries ('current US unemployment rate', 'Apple's latest 10-K') implicitly illustrate acceptable input formatting but add no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific function (route questions to the right of 5,908 tools across 1540 verified sources, fill arguments, return structured answers with citations) and clearly distinguishes the tool from web search by name. The domain list (SEC, FDA, FRED/BLS, patents, real estate, etc.) makes the resource scope explicit, and 'START HERE for most questions' positions it as a universal entry point.

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 exceptionally concrete when-to-use guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', explicit trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'how much', 'current'), and six concrete example queries. It names web search as the alternative to prefer this over, but does not explicitly address when to use ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded among siblings, relying instead on 'START HERE' to imply routing order.

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