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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool routes to one of 5,724 tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also notes that it works on every tier with one fast call, which is useful behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 instruction and then efficiently covers scope, examples, and escalation paths. Despite its length, each sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotation fields.

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 simple tool with one required natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: scope, when to use, what happens internally, what the return looks like, and how it differs from siblings. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and selection.

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 fully documents the canonical 'question' parameter and its five aliases with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter syntax. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, but the schema already carries that burden, so the 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 opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and clearly states that the tool routes questions to a large set of verified sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can identify which tool handles general factual questions.

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: use for 'what is', 'look up', 'find', 'current', and factual questions, even if web search could answer them. It also gives step-up conditions for ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, and notes that ask_pipeworx is the default entry point, making the choice among siblings clear.

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