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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it routes the question, fills arguments automatically, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and is a single fast call on every tier. It doesn't mention failure modes or edge cases, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the primary directive, then covers domains, mechanics, trigger phrases, examples, and escalation guidance in a logical progression. Every sentence serves a routing or behavioral purpose, though it is slightly verbose for a tool with a single required parameter.

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?

Given the single required parameter and the absence of an output schema, the description supplies comprehensive context: supported domains, trigger phrases, concrete examples, return format, citation behavior, tier availability, and explicit distinctions from sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including aliases and a natural-language description for 'question', so the baseline is 3. The description adds illustrative examples and domain guidance but no new parameter-level constraints or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 defines the tool as the default question-answering entry point for factual/current/historical data, explicitly listing domains and explaining that it routes to 5,743 tools and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It also differentiates itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making its 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever...') and when-to-step-up guidance for alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers, deep_research for broad/multi-part questions). It also clarifies that breaking-news questions are already handled, preventing unnecessary escalation.

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