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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the tool routes to specialized tools, fills argument values, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not contradict 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?

Despite being relatively long, the description is front-loaded with the critical directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', followed by dense, useful detail: source domains, trigger phrases, concrete examples, and a 'START HERE' default. Every sentence adds practical value for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 general-purpose router tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what inputs to provide, what kinds of questions are appropriate, and what the response will include (structured answer plus citation URIs). The list of examples and trigger phrases makes invocation decisions straightforward even without an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single meaningful parameter 'question' is fully documented, including aliases q, query, prompt, text, and input. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the complete burden. 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 clearly identifies the tool as a general question-answering router: it 'routes the question to the right one of 5,714 tools' and 'returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It distinguishes itself from web search by explicitly preferring this tool for factual, data-backed queries, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded tools.

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 gives strong, explicit usage guidance: a comprehensive list of data domains, trigger phrases like 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', and examples such as 'current US unemployment rate' and 'Apple's latest 10-K'. It even says 'START HERE for most questions.' However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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