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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it routes questions, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and notes that live news is routed automatically. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 every sentence earns its place: preference directive, scope, behavior, trigger phrases, examples, and alternatives are all actionable. It is front-loaded with the most critical guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and structured so an agent can quickly extract when and how to use it.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and broad routing behavior, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (structured answer with citation URIs), when to use it, and when to choose siblings instead. No critical calling information is missing.

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%, with all six parameters (question plus five aliases) documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond examples, but because the schema fully covers the single required parameter, 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 names a specific verb and resource: it routes questions to 5,908 tools across verified sources and returns structured answers. It clearly distinguishes itself from web search and named siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting 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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over web search for factual/current/historical data, gives trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest'), provides concrete examples, and names alternatives with clear selection criteria: use ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant 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.