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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about returning structured answers with citation URIs and routing to live news, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely verbose and repetitive. It repeats the same guidance multiple times (e.g., 'Use whenever', 'START HERE', 'Step up only when needed') and includes redundant phrases like 'even if web search could also answer it'. This could be condensed significantly without losing meaning.

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?

The description is contextually complete: it explains the tool's role, when to use it, when not to use it, and what output to expect. While slightly overlong, it covers all necessary context for an agent to decide whether to call this tool.

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 covers all 6 parameters, each with a description (mostly as aliases for 'question'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states the tool's function: answering factual questions by routing to thousands of sources and returning structured answers with citations. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool (for factual questions about real-world entities, numbers, etc.) and when to use alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers, deep_research for broad multi-part questions). This provides clear usage guidance.

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