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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fills arguments automatically, returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, is fast, and implicitly warns that it is not hallucination-resistant by pointing users to ask_pipeworx_grounded for that guarantee.

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 long but appropriately so for a default routing tool with many siblings. It front-loads the most important instruction, then provides domains, trigger phrases, examples, and sibling differentiation. There is some overlap between the trigger phrases and examples, but it remains structured and purposeful rather than bloated.

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 tool with a single free-text parameter, no output schema, and a broad mandate, the description is unusually complete. It covers scope, mechanics, alternatives, examples, tier availability, and even addresses the news use case. The only minor omissions are failure behavior and exact output formatting, but the structured-answer-with-citations promise is sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters, documenting all six aliases (question, q, text, input, query, prompt). The description adds usage examples and trigger phrases, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a clear directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and states the tool's function: route a factual question to the right one of 6,232 tools and return a structured answer with citations. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as step-ups, while positioning itself as the default entry point.

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 extremely explicit when-to-use guidance, listing specific data domains, trigger phrases, and example questions. It also explains when to step up to alternatives (grounded for verbatim evidence, deep_research for broad multi-part questions) and notes that ask_pipeworx already handles live news so no separate news tool is needed.

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