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

Annotations already carry readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints; the description adds mechanism—automatic routing, argument filling, and citation URIs—without contradicting any annotation. It does not describe failure modes or latency, but those are secondary given the annotation safety profile.

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 but sectioned by purpose, triggers, examples, and exclusions; each section adds useful routing information. The trigger-verb list is somewhat repetitive ('what is', 'find', 'get the latest') but not excessive for a broad 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 tool with no output schema, it explains the output type ('structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs') and coverage domains/limits. Minor omissions—like fallback behavior when no source matches or how ask_pipeworx_grounded differs—keep it from being fully complete.

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?

Input schema already documents 100% of parameters, including aliases q/text/input/query/prompt and natural-language description. The description adds example queries and trigger phrases, but no new parameter format or required syntax beyond what the schema covers.

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 opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and states it 'Routes the question to the right one of 5,908 tools...returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs,' giving a concrete verb, resource, and output. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly delegating proprietary data to get_data and entity comparisons to compare_entities.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use ('Use whenever the user asks "what is", "look up"... or any factual question') and when not to ('not for creative writing, math, coding, translation... or proprietary internal data (use get_data) or for comparing entities (use compare_entities)'). This gives an agent clear routing logic beyond a generic 'ask this tool.'

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