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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing the routing/fill-arguments behavior, the return format (structured answer with stable citation URIs), and that it can answer even when web search could also answer. It also notes its coverage of live news and news-feed packs, adding behavioral context 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 longer than average but well-structured: purpose, trigger phrases, examples, and alternatives are each in their own section. It is front-loaded with the most critical guidance. A few example phrases are repetitive, but overall every sentence adds value and the organization makes it easy to scan.

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 general-purpose question-routing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, what inputs are expected (natural language questions), what the output looks like (structured answer + citations), and how it differs from siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases thoroughly. The description adds usage examples but does not introduce parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load; the examples are a bonus but not a substantive semantic addition.

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 states a specific, high-level purpose: it routes questions to the right one of 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It names its own scope (current or historical data) and explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for a broad list of factual/structured-data queries and gives trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', etc.) with concrete examples. It also names when not to use it: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, and deep_research for broad/multi-part questions. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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