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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool internally routes, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable citation URIs. It does not disclose failure modes or rate limits, but the annotation coverage reduces that burden.

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 front-loaded with the most important directive, 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', then gives a domain list, trigger phrases, examples, and routing guidance. It is somewhat verbose and slightly repetitive in the final paragraphs, but every major section contributes useful decision-making information.

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, the description does a strong job of setting expectations: it returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citations. It also covers the breadth of supported question types, gives explicit routing to alternatives, and includes examples, so an agent has enough context to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 has 100% description coverage: all six parameters are documented as aliases for the single 'question' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas. Its examples illustrate natural-language phrasing but do not add new parameter semantics.

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 what the tool does: it routes natural-language questions to the right one of 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also distinguishes it from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as alternatives, making the tool's role as the default entry point unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over web search and to start here for most questions, and it gives concrete trigger phrases and examples like 'current US unemployment rate' and 'Apple's latest 10-K'. It also tells when to step up to alternatives: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant verbatim 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.