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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond those traits: it routes internally, fills arguments automatically, and returns stable citation URIs. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could mention ambiguity or failure handling for especially vague questions.

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 densely informative and front-loaded with the most important guidance: prefer over web search. The domain list and examples earn their place, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary and has occasional formatting quirks.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the scope, gives trigger phrases, provides representative examples, describes the answer format, and names the relevant sibling tools for edge cases. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool accepts natural-language questions and automatically fills arguments, reducing the need for an agent to worry about low-level parameters.

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 a specific role: routing factual questions to 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources and returning structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It names concrete domains and example queries, and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded, get_section_text, and deep_research.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over web search, lists trigger phrases and example queries, and gives explicit routing rules to alternatives for grounded fact-checks, single-document retrieval, and broad multi-part research. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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