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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: it routes to many tools, fills arguments, returns stable citation URIs, and works on every tier with one fast call. This gives the agent useful expectations about behavior without contradicting annotations.

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-organized and front-loaded with the most critical guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). Every sentence adds value—trigger phrases, examples, and routing advice are all included. Minor redundancy ('START HERE' and 'default entry point' repeated) keeps it from a 5.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns (structured answer with citation URIs), when to use it, and when to step up to more specialized tools (grounded, deep_research). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly, though it does not cover error handss or edge cases.

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% since all parameters (question plus aliases) have descriptions. The description does not add much beyond the schema—it only reiterates the natural-language nature and provides examples. With high schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it routes natural language questions to one of 5,724 tools across 1,497 verified sources and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, and explicitly frames itself as the default entry point versus web search.

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 guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual questions, lists trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', etc.), gives concrete examples, and names alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded answers, deep_research for multi-part questions) with conditions. It even clarifies when ask_pipeworx itself handles news topics.

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