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

The description explains the tool's behavior beyond annotations: it 'routes the question to the right one of 5,718 tools across 1496 verified sources, fills arguments, returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' This tells the agent the tool is a router that returns structured data with citations, which is valuable context even though readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint are already set. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but nearly every sentence adds value: scope, behavior, trigger phrases, and concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and ends with 'START HERE,' which is a useful summary. The phrase 'even if web search could also answer it' is slightly redundant with the opening, so it loses a point for no wasted sentences.

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 broad tool with 6 parameters (aliases) and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains the routing behavior, source base, output format (structured answer with citation URIs), and when to use it. It covers the key conditions an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, and the examples illustrate the expected input format. Nothing critical 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the question parameter and aliases. The description adds useful examples and mentions that the tool 'fills arguments,' but does not add synthesis about parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description's examples illustrate usage.

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 verb ('ask') and resource (Pipeworx), then expands with an explicit scope: routes questions to 5,718 tools across 1,496 verified sources and returns structured answers with citations. It distinguishes itself from web search by saying 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and sets itself as the default with 'START HERE for most questions.' This gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool does beyond the title.

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 for questions about current or historical data,' lists trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', etc.), and says to use it 'even if web search could also answer it.' It does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is otherwise very clear.

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