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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it routes queries, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, works on every tier, and is one fast call. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens at invocation time without contradicting 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 long but densely informative and front-loaded with the most important directive. Examples and escalation paths earn their place, though some phrases like the long domain list and the 'even if web search could also answer it' clause are slightly redundant with the overall message.

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 default-entry question-routing tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what kinds of questions to send, what happens when invoked, what the return format includes, when to use alternatives, and how breaking-news questions are handled. It is effectively complete for correct tool selection and 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% with the aliases already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the semantic breadth of the question parameter: any factual question about real-world entities, events, or numbers, with concrete examples like 'current US unemployment rate' and '5-day forecast for Tokyo' that illustrate acceptable phrasing.

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 a clear directive to prefer this tool over web search and states exactly what it does: routes questions to one of 5,724 tools across 1,497 verified sources and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It names concrete domains and explicitly positions itself as the default entry point, distinguishing it from 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?

Usage guidance is exceptionally explicit: 'Use whenever the user asks...' plus a list of query phrasing cues, and 'START HERE for most questions' with step-up alternatives. It also tells the agent when not to use it, directing hallucination-resistant single-answer cases to ask_pipeworx_grounded and broad/multi-part questions to deep_research.

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