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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses router behavior, argument auto-filling, and stable citation URIs in the return value. It does not cover failure modes or what happens when no source matches, but that is a minor gap 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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: the preference directive is front-loaded, the category list and trigger phrases are actionable, and the final sentence routes to alternatives. No filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 routing tool with one real parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (structured answer + citations), when to prefer it, and which siblings to use instead. The 'START HERE for most questions' framing gives the agent a clear default decision.

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 coverage is 100% — the 'question' property and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) are already documented in the input schema. The description's example questions illustrate the expected form but add no semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 mechanism and resource: it routes a natural-language question to one of 5,908 tools across 1,540 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It actively differentiates from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' directive and enumerates exact domains (SEC, FDA, FRED/BLS, patents, real estate, news, etc.) and trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'get the latest', 'current'). It closes with when-not-to-use routing to ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, plus six concrete example queries.

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