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

Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it routes to thousands of sources, fills arguments automatically, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, works on every tier, and is a single fast call. This gives the agent a realistic model of what happens when 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 long but well-structured: preference rule, supported domains, trigger phrases, examples, sibling comparisons, and edge cases. Every section earns its place, though the list of alternative tools could be slightly tightened without loss.

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 tool with one required free-text parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what inputs it accepts, what it does, what it returns (structured answer with citations), and when to choose a sibling instead. It doesn't describe the exact response format, but that's not essential for invocation.

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% and aliases are documented in the schema itself, so the description doesn't need to add much. It provides helpful example questions, but the core semantic of a free-text natural-language question is already clear from both the schema and the description.

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 is explicit: this tool routes factual questions about real-world data to the appropriate one of 5,724 tools and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citations. It clearly names the resource (Pipeworx knowledge router) and distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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?

Provides strong guidance: prefer this over web search, use ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions, and this tool handles news/breaking topics. Includes concrete trigger phrases and examples, so an agent knows exactly when to select it.

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