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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds non-obvious behavior: internal routing across 5,767 tools, automatic argument filling, and the commitment to stable pipeworx:// citation URIs in the return value — especially valuable given there is no output schema. Minor gap: no disclosure of failure modes (unroutable questions, ambiguous entities), but this is not a serious omission given the safety 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?

Long but every section earns its place: preference directive opens the description, followed by mechanism, trigger phrases, examples, and alternative routing. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the highest-value guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). The example list is the most compressible section but legitimately earns its space by demonstrating valid input formats for an otherwise underspecified free-text parameter.

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 complex router tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: selection criteria, input format, internal behavior, expected return shape (structured answer + citation URIs), and routing to an alternative. The only unresolvable gap is differentiation from the ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded siblings, but the 'START HERE for most questions' positioning handles the default case, and each variant presumably carries its own description.

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% (question plus five aliases all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by shaping what the single parameter should contain: trigger phrases and six concrete example questions ('current US unemployment rate', 'Apple's latest 10-K') demonstrate the expected natural-language format beyond the schema's generic 'your question or request in natural language.' This helps an agent formulate high-quality inputs.

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?

States a specific mechanism with concrete verbs: 'routes the question to the right one of 5,767 tools across 1506 verified sources, fills arguments, returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' The resource scope is clearly defined (authoritative structured data with citations across SEC, FDA, FRED/BLS, USPTO, etc.), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from web search and deep_research. The domain list further disambiguates what this tool handles vs. what siblings cover.

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?

Exceptional routing guidance. It explicitly prefers this tool over web search, lists trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'how much', 'current'), provides six concrete example queries, and names the alternative (deep_research) with the exact condition that should route elsewhere ('broad/multi-part question that should fan out across many sources'). It even handles the breaking-news edge case, closing a potential mis-selection path.

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