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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds routing behavior, automatic argument filling, stable citation URIs in the response, and a concrete fallback guarantee that unknown pack slugs are ignored and reported in _meta.pack_scope rather than producing an empty answer. That is real behavioral detail an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-value directive (prefer over web search) and a routing rule before examples and escalation guidance, so an agent reading only the first sentence still acts correctly. It is on the long side and repeats its 'default entry point' framing twice, which costs a point, but the density is mostly earned rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what comes back (structured answer plus pipeworx:// citation URIs) and what happens on partial failures via _meta.pack_scope. Given the tool's open-world routing complexity, it supplies everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

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% and the single meaningful parameter (packs) is documented in both places, with the description restating that omitting it yields full-catalog routing — consistent with, not merely repeating, the schema. The alias parameters are not discussed in the description, but the schema already enumerates and explains all eight aliases, so the baseline would be 3 were the description silent; it earns above baseline by tying packs usage to the routing behavior it describes.

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 states a concrete verb and mechanism: it routes a natural-language question to the correct one of 7,397 tools across 1,947 sources, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also enumerates the domains covered (SEC, FDA, FRED/BLS, USPTO, ATTOM, weather, clinical trials, news, etc.), which makes it unmistakable versus siblings like company_facts or pubtator_search.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions', trigger phrasings like 'what is', 'look up', 'how much'), plus named alternatives with the exact conditions that select them: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, deep_research for broad multi-part fan-out. It even pre-empts the 'what's the world saying about X' case by noting routing to news feeds.

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