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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description explains the actual behavior: it routes to one of 5,743 tools across 1,500 sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also signals that grounded mode exists for hallucination-resistant answers, which is honest about the default tool's limitations.

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 front-loads the key message and each section earns its place: core purpose, trigger examples, default positioning, and alternatives. Minor redundancy between 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'START HERE for most questions' keeps it from a 5, but it remains well organized for a central 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 tool with no output schema and a single required natural-language parameter, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, alternative tools, example queries, and the return format. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly in a wide range of situations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases. The description reinforces what kinds of natural-language questions are appropriate, but it does not add parameter-level formatting or syntax details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 identifies a clear verb and resource: it answers factual questions about current or historical real-world data by routing them to the appropriate underlying tool. It explicitly differentiates itself from web search and from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 with trigger phrases, example questions, and domain categories. It also tells the agent when to step up to ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research, and notes that ask_pipeworx already covers live news, making alternatives and exclusions clear.

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