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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable context beyond those: it routes to an enormous internal tool ecosystem, fills arguments automatically, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, and makes one fast call. This clearly describes operational 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 longer than average but every section earns its place: scope, trigger phrases, examples, alternative routing, and caveats. There is slight redundancy ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'START HERE' both make the same point), but the front-loaded directive and clear structure keep it usable.

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 with a single required natural-language parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what to expect (structured answer with citations), how it compares to siblings, and provides representative examples covering multiple domains.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the natural-language question. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the schema already fully covers what the agent needs to know, so the baseline 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 identifies the tool as a router that sends factual questions to one of 5,743 tools across 1,500 sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It explicitly contrasts itself with web search and sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can distinguish them 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 ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions') and lists concrete trigger phrases like 'what is', 'look up', 'find', and 'get the latest'. It also names alternatives with their specific conditions: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, and deep_research for broad/multi-part questions.

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