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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the tool routes to one of 5,718 tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, which is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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 key instruction to prefer this over web search and includes concrete trigger phrases and examples that make the intended use vivid. It is longer than strictly necessary, but nearly every sentence adds practical guidance, so the length is justified.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves internally, and what kind of output to expect. Given the annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and the input schema is fully documented, the only minor gap is the lack of more specific sibling routing guidance, but overall it is fairly complete for such a broad router tool.

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%, and the schema already documents each parameter as an alias for the natural-language question. The description adds examples and phrasing patterns, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so 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 clearly identifies a specific function: routing a natural-language question to one of many tools and returning a structured, cited answer. It distinguishes itself from web search and names examples, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded, only offering a generic 'start here' heuristic.

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search, use for factual/real-world questions, and use whenever trigger phrases like 'look up', 'find', or 'latest' appear. It also gives an exclusion ('except when another tool is clearly better targeted'), but it does not name specific sibling tools or describe concrete scenarios where one of them should be selected instead.

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