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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds context beyond that: it's a router that fills arguments, returns structured answers with citation URIs, works on every tier, and is a single fast call. It doesn't disclose potential limitations (e.g., latency or fallback behavior) but given the annotations, the added context is sufficient.

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 lengthy but well-structured: it starts with the primary directive, then usage guidance, examples, and escalation paths. Every sentence contributes to routing decisions or clarifies behavior. It's not overly verbose given the tool's complexity, though it could be tightened slightly without losing information.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns (structured answer with citations), and how it compares to alternatives. It also notes that it works on all tiers and is the default entry point. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema clearly describes the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description adds value by explaining that the question is natural language and providing examples of acceptable phrasing, but it doesn't add technical semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't materially improve parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: routes questions to 6,350 tools across 1,659 sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with citations. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research and explaining when each is preferable. The verb 'ask' and resource 'Pipeworx' are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever the user asks...', and lists example queries. It also gives exclusions and alternatives: 'Step up only when needed' for grounded or deep research, and covers breaking news routing. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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