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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it routes, fills arguments, and returns citation URIs rather than directly producing a static answer. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate and does not contradict 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 opening guidance is useful and front-loaded, but the description contains a repeated "START HERE for most questions" block with the same examples appearing multiple times. This makes it unnecessarily long and not 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?

For a broad routing tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description explains the output shape (structured answer with stable citation URIs), provides use cases and examples, and names alternatives. It could describe exact response fields, but that is not essential for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description reinforces that the input is a natural-language question and gives examples, but it does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it routes a question to one of 5,743 tools across 1,500 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, so an agent can identify which tool is which.

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 to prefer this tool over web search for certain data categories and lists trigger phrases like "what is", "look up", "find", and "get the latest". It also gives clear guidance on when to step up to ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research, making the decision boundary explicit.

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