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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: the tool auto-fills arguments for downstream tools so callers just ask in natural language, and returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. One mild tension: 'news' is listed as a covered domain yet breaking news is deferred to a direct news tool — defensible but slightly confusing.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the opening line delivers the core decision ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by domains, mechanism, examples, and exclusions in order. Some redundancy — 'even if web search could also answer it' appears twice and the Apple revenue example overlaps in spirit with 'Apple's latest 10-K' — but nearly every sentence 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?

Although structurally simple (one meaningful parameter, no output schema, no enums), the description covers end-to-end behavior: scope, routing mechanism, citation format, and exclusion cases. Missing only minor context: behavior on ambiguous questions and how to choose among the ask_pipeworx_* variants or complementary tools like deep_research.

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% — all six parameters (question plus five aliases) are described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving valid example questions and trigger phrases that illustrate what belongs in the single natural-language input. It never explicitly states only one parameter is needed, but the schema and examples make that obvious.

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?

States an unambiguous function: routing a natural-language question to one of 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources and returning a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. The verb and resource scope are specific, and the description clearly separates this tool from web search. However, it never differentiates from the near-identically named siblings ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded, so an agent cannot tell which variant to prefer.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use signals: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH,' trigger phrases ('what is,' 'look up,' 'find,' 'get the latest,' 'how much,' 'current'), six concrete examples, and the directive 'START HERE for most questions.' It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives — a direct news tool for breaking news, web search for opinions/philosophy/creative writing. This is the strongest possible routing guidance.

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