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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds that the tool fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and is a single fast call across all tiers, which is useful beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with key preference signals and uses examples plus sibling routing logic efficiently. It is longer than strictly necessary, with some redundancy in the 'default entry point' and 'works on every tier' phrasing, but every major section earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is unusually complete: it explains scope, expected output format, citation URIs, example queries, and escalation paths to relevant siblings. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter-level context by enumerating accepted question domains (SEC, FDA, FRED/BLS, patents, weather, etc.) and example phrasings. This helps the agent craft an appropriate natural-language query beyond the schema's minimal 'question or request' 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 clearly states what ask_pipeworx does: routes factual questions to the right underlying tool and returns structured, cited answers. It also explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, positioning itself as the default entry point.

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?

It gives direct preference guidance over web search, provides concrete trigger phrases and examples, and explains when to escalate to ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, or news packs. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, fully resolving selection ambiguity.

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