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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it routes to downstream tools, fills arguments automatically, returns structured answers with citation URIs, and advises a retry-once strategy on errors. No contradiction with 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 longer than minimal, but nearly every sentence earns its place: scope, behavior, examples, decision rule, and fallback guidance are all useful. It is front-loaded with the most important instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). Slight redundancy in the repeated 'even if web search could also answer it' theme keeps it from a 5.

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 meta-router with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers the domain categories, the routing behavior, the return format with citations, concrete examples, when to use it, when not to use it, and what to do on errors. The safety-relevant aspects are already covered by annotations, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the single question parameter accepts broad natural-language queries and that the tool will 'fill arguments' on its own — so the agent does not need to pre-specify tool-specific parameters. Examples reinforce acceptable query shapes.

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 verb ('routes', 'returns') and resource ('questions to one of 5,908 tools... returns structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs'). It is unmistakable what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever the user asks...', 'START HERE for most questions'), explicit when-not-to-use ('unless you already have authoritative data in context, or the user is asking about your own capabilities'), and explicitly names web search as the alternative it should be preferred over.

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