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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context: the tool internally routes to 5,801 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and works on every tier with one fast call. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't describe error handling or response format details, which is acceptable given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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 every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the critical directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), then lists supported domains, provides examples, and finishes with explicit routing guidance to sibling tools. The structure is logical and scannable, with no filler or repetition.

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 of this complexity (routing to thousands of sources), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, and what kind of input is expected. It mentions the return format (structured answers with citations) even without an output schema. An agent can confidently decide to invoke this tool and formulate a valid query based solely on this description.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: each of the six parameters is an alias for the same 'question' field, and the schema already describes it as 'Your question or request in natural language'. The description reinforces this with multiple examples of valid questions, but it doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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-purpose question-answering service that routes queries to authoritative sources, returning structured answers with citations. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as alternatives for different use cases. The verb 'ask' plus the resource 'Pipeworx' is specific, and the list of domains (SEC filings, FDA, FRED, etc.) leaves no doubt about its scope.

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 tells agents when to prefer this tool over web search and when to step up to alternatives: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual questions, and 'Step up only when needed: for a hallucination-resistant single answer... use ask_pipeworx_grounded; for a broad/multi-part question... use deep_research'. It also notes that breaking-news questions are handled internally. This is exemplary usage guidance with clear conditions and named alternatives.

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