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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns structured citations, works on every tier, takes one fast call, and reveals that ask_pipeworx_grounded provides hallucination-resistant verbatim evidence, implying the base tool is faster but less rigorous.

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 front-loaded with the most important directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by scope, examples, and escalation guidance. Some redundancy exists in the list of categories and the repeated 'START HERE' guidance, but each section serves a routing decision.

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 tool with one natural-language parameter, no output schema, but broad routing responsibilities, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent when to prefer it, when not to use it, what kinds of questions to send, what the output will include, and which alternatives fit specific gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single question parameter and aliases fully described in the schema. The description adds only general context that the tool accepts natural-language questions and fills tool arguments, which is useful but does not materially augment the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('routes the question'), a precise resource (5,938 tools across 1,547 verified sources), and an explicit outcome (structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as alternatives for different scenarios.

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?

Gives explicit precedence over web search, specifies trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'how much', 'current'), and provides concrete examples. It also tells the agent when to 'step up' to ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research, making usage boundaries unambiguous.

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