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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing that the tool routes across 5,743 tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. This gives agents a clear behavioral model of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 a strong 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' directive and a useful domain list, followed by concrete examples. However, it is longer than necessary and contains a contradictory tail ('START HERE' vs. 'fallback router; chain it only if you have no better option') that wastes words and actively confuses the usage guidance. Most sentences earn their place, but the contradictory ending prevents a higher 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?

For a router tool with no output schema, the description explains the return format well: a structured answer with stable citation URIs. It also covers the required input and gives representative use cases. The main gap is the unresolved contradiction in usage guidance, which makes the contextual picture incomplete for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool versus an alternative.

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%: the 'question' parameter is described as a natural-language request, and all aliases are explicitly documented. The tool description adds illustrative example questions, which helps, but it does not add semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 routes natural-language questions to one of 5,743 tools and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, which makes its core purpose understandable. It also differentiates itself from web search by positioning itself as the preferred option for authoritative/structured data. However, it does not explicitly distinguish ask_pipeworx from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the later 'fallback router' phrasing slightly muddies the otherwise clear purpose.

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 provides strong, explicit usage signals: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', specific query phrases like 'what is' and 'look up', and a list of example questions. It also names an alternative ('web search' for deeply current news), which is useful. However, the ending is self-contradictory—'START HERE for most questions' versus 'This tool is a fallback router; chain it only if you have no better option'—leaving an agent uncertain about whether this should be the first choice or a last resort.

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