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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it routes to 5,908 tools across 1,540 verified sources, automatically fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. It doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes, but it goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a strong directive, then delivers scope, routing behavior, trigger phrases, and examples in a logical order. The final note about breaking-news routing is slightly awkwardly placed but adds useful nuance. There is minimal fluff relative to the amount of guidance provided.

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 an open-world router with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: domains, trigger phrases, examples, routing mechanism, and return format with citation URIs are all covered. It could still mention differences from ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded and potential error behavior, but an agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including aliases and the natural-language semantics of question. The description's examples illustrate acceptable input values but don't add novel parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 for a broad set of factual/current-data questions, then states the core behavior: routes the question to one of 5,908 tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from web search and specialized siblings.

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 provides explicit trigger phrases ("what is", "look up", "find", "get the latest", "how much", "current"), concrete examples, and the directive "START HERE for most questions". It also names web search as the alternative to prefer this tool over, making the selection rule explicit. It doesn't distinguish among ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded, but the broad router role makes that less critical.

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