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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description reveals the routing behavior, automatic argument filling, and the structured output with stable citation URIs. It also notes that live news is already aggregated here, saving the agent from selecting a separate news tool. No contradiction with the 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 dense but efficiently structured: it front-loads the primary instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), then provides domains, mechanics, trigger phrases, examples, and routing guidance. Every sentence contributes to selection or invocation, with no repetition or filler.

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 complex routing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, output format ('structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs'), and when to use a different tool. The read-only annotations cover safety, and the single required parameter is fully explained through schema and examples.

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 all parameters are documented aliases for 'question', so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds value by providing trigger phrases and concrete examples of acceptable queries, clarifying the intended content of the 'question' argument beyond a generic natural-language string.

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 routes questions to one of 5,743 tools across 1,500 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It lists specific domains and example queries, and distinguishes itself from web search and from the deep_research sibling used for broad/multi-part questions.

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?

It opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and provides explicit when-to-use guidance: factual questions about real-world entities, events, or numbers, even if web search could answer. It explicitly names an alternative for when not to use it ('for a broad/multi-part question that should fan out across many sources at once, use deep_research') and clarifies that live news is already covered by this tool.

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