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

Annotations already signal readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the tool routes questions to other tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns citation URIs, so an agent understands it as an orchestrator rather than a single-source lookup. Minor gap: no detail on rate limits or failure behavior, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 dense but well-organized: priority statement, mechanism, trigger phrases, examples, and alternatives. It is slightly longer than necessary because 'START HERE for most questions' and 'even if web search could also answer it' reinforce the same idea, but every section contributes useful routing guidance.

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 high-complexity router with no output schema, the description covers when to use, when not to use, alternatives, accepted input style, concrete examples, and return behavior via citations. An agent has enough context to select and call the tool correctly without needing the schema or extra metadata.

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: the required 'question' parameter and all aliases (q, query, prompt, text, input) are fully documented. The description adds illustrative example queries, but the schema already carries the semantic burden, so this stays at the baseline 3.

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 defines the tool as a question router over '5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources' that 'returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It establishes a specific verb+resource contract and distinguishes it as the default alternative to web search and to sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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 is explicit about when to use the tool: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual/current/historical data, 'use whenever the user asks...' specific trigger phrases, and 'START HERE for most questions.' It also names alternatives with selection conditions: ask_pipeworx_grounded for exact answers from a specific source, and deep_research for broad/multi-part fan-out across many sources.

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