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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context on top: it routes to the correct tool, fills arguments, returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and is 'one fast call' that works on every tier. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the highest-value guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE'). For a default entry-point tool that must handle sibling routing, the length is largely justified. Some redundancy exists between the trigger-phrase list and the examples, but every sentence earns a place given the routing complexity.

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?

The description is complete for a QA routing tool: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, when to step up to alternatives, and what the response contains (structured answer with citation URIs) despite the absence of an output schema. For a single-string-query tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — the schema documents the required 'question' parameter and five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt), so no compensation is needed. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is fine since the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the aliases are fully covered.

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 names a specific verb and resource: routes a natural-language question to 5,743 verified tools across 1500 sources and returns a citation-backed structured answer. It lists concrete domains (SEC, FDA, FRED/BLS, patents, weather, clinical trials, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Guidance is explicit and complete: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions', named trigger phrases, and clear step-up conditions naming the alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded verbatim answers, deep_research for broad/multi-part fan-out). It even handles edge cases like breaking news routing. Nothing is left to inference.

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