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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: routing to thousands of sources, automatic argument filling, structured answers with stable citation URIs, and a verification caveat. Some stray fragments like 'UPDATE.' and 'All tools here have the same endpoints' slightly reduce clarity, but there is no contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the most important guidance and includes useful examples. However, it is somewhat repetitive—ask_pipeworx_grounded is mentioned twice as an alternative—and contains extraneous fragments such as 'UPDATE.' and 'Some tools are only available in beta.' that add noise.

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 single-required-parameter router tool with no output schema, the description covers domain scope, routing behavior, return format with citations, usage triggers, alternatives, and exclusions. It is nearly complete, though a bit less crisp in structure than it could be.

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 already documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description provides many natural-language examples but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Routes the question to the right one of 5,743 tools across 1500 verified sources, fills arguments, returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' It also clarifies it is a broad factual-answer router and distinguishes it from web search and sibling tools.

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 for questions about current or historical data', 'Use whenever the user asks...', and 'START HERE for most questions.' It also names alternatives for specific cases such as ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, resolve_entity, and states when not to use it.

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