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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it routes to one of 5,873 tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This gives the agent a clear picture of what will happen upon invocation.

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 front-loaded with the most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and organized into usage, behavior, examples, and alternatives. It is somewhat long and contains a slightly redundant restatement of 'even if web search could also answer it,' but the structure and examples earn their place for a broad routing tool.

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 single-parameter router with no output schema, the description covers the essential context thoroughly: when to use it, what it routes to, how the answer is returned, example queries, and which sibling tools to prefer in specific cases. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases of the natural-language question. The description reinforces that the input is a natural-language question and supplies examples, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 ask_pipeworx as a natural-language router that answers factual questions about real-world data by selecting among thousands of tools and returning structured answers with citations. It explicitly contrasts itself with web search and deep_research, making its purpose and differentiation unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search, use for factual questions, start here for most questions, and prefer over deep_research except for broad multi-part questions. It also includes concrete trigger phrases and examples, plus a note about breaking-news handling.

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