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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context: routing to 5,743 tools, returning structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs, working on all tiers, and being fast. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful operational details beyond 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 longer than average but well-structured: it front-loads the key directive, then explains routing, gives examples, and specifies when to use alternatives. Every section earns its place, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value. It's organized and skimmable.

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 complex routing tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, what it returns (structured answer with citations), and even performance characteristics. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and know what to expect, with no significant gaps.

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 schema has full coverage (100%) for the parameters — all are aliases for 'question' with descriptions. The description only reiterates that the input is a natural language question, which the schema already states. It adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: answering factual questions by routing to a large pool of tools and returning structured answers with citation URIs. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, and even from web search, making the tool's role 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 and when-not-to-use guidance. It opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', lists trigger phrases, gives examples, and instructs to 'START HERE'. It also names alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded answers, deep_research for multi-part queries) and the conditions to step up. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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