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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it routes to sub-tools, automatically fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not mention failure modes, latency, or limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the added mechanism detail is genuinely useful.

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 critical instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and lists domains, trigger phrases, and examples efficiently. It is longer than average, but the length is justified by the breadth of guidance and every sentence contributes. Minor redundancy like 'or anything requiring authoritative structured data' extends rather than repeats the point.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: when to use it, what domains it covers, how it behaves, and the citation format of the response. Sibling variants are not explained, and there is no guidance on error or ambiguity handling, but the provided richness is strong enough for selection and invocation confidence.

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%, with all six parameters (question and its aliases) fully documented in the schema. The description's examples illustrate valid natural-language queries but add no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Thus a 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 states a specific verb ('routes the question'), resource (Pipeworx's 5,908 tools across 1,540 verified sources), and scope (factual questions with citations). It enumerates domains and trigger phrases, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling variants like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it falls just short of a 5.

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', 'Use whenever the user asks...', and 'START HERE for most questions'. It provides concrete example queries and clarifies that it is preferred even when web search could answer. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or how it compares to similar Pipeworx sibling tools, preventing a 5.

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