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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the tool routes among 5,728 tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns results with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not mention failure modes or limitations, but for a query-router this is adequate.

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 longer than average, but it earns its length with front-loaded priority guidance, explicit usage examples, and clear alternative routing. The early 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' phrase immediately orients the agent. Minor redundancy and the somewhat rapid-fire list of examples keep it from a 5.

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?

Given the tool's broad router nature and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what kinds of questions to send, what domains are supported, how the tool behaves, and what kind of output to expect. It could add more about edge cases such as unsupported questions or ambiguous requests, but the guidance is strong overall.

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%, so the schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description reinforces that the input is a natural-language question and provides representative examples, but it does not add substantive parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 opens with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and explicitly defines the tool as a router for factual questions across SEC filings, FDA data, economic statistics, and many other domains. It clearly states what the tool does: routes the question, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with citations. This strongly differentiates 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?

The description gives concrete when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search for authoritative data, use for factual questions starting with 'what is', 'look up', 'find', etc. It also names alternatives: deep_research for broad/multi-part questions, and clarifies that ask_pipeworx already handles live news, reducing ambiguity about tool selection.

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