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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to re-establish safety. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it routes across 5,798 tools and 1,517 verified sources, auto-fills arguments, returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs, and handles live news through news packs. It doesn't discuss failure modes or latency, but for an idempotent read-only lookup tool this is a minor gap.

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 it is front-loaded with the most important instruction and every major section earns its place: coverage areas, behavioral contract, trigger phrases, concrete examples, and sibling-routing guidance. There is some redundancy, such as 'START HERE for most questions' restating the opening 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the caller what to expect: a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also covers scope, examples, trigger phrases, and when to route to alternatives. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool and how to phrase the request.

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 already fully documents the single required 'question' parameter and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description provides illustrative examples and trigger phrases, but it doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states. 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 opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for questions about current or historical data' and lists concrete domains such as SEC filings, FDA data, economic statistics, patents, real estate, and news. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: routes the question to the appropriate source, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from generic web search and sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers such as 'what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'how much', and 'current', and explicitly says to prefer it even when web search could answer. It names specific alternatives: ask_pipeworx_grounded for step-by-step grounded reasoning, ask_pipeworx_beta for controversial or incoherent output, and deep_research for broad multi-part research. This is the gold standard for usage guidance.

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