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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it internally routes and fills arguments, is 'one fast call', works on every tier, and returns stable citation URIs. It doesn't describe latency, rate limits, or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 high-value routing constraint ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and the step-up alternatives are front-loaded, followed by examples. It is long and somewhat repetitive (the domain list and example list overlap), but nearly every clause earns its place for a routing tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description discloses the return shape (structured answer with citation URIs) and gives the tier/alternative context needed to choose correctly. Coverage is strong; only minor operational details (latency, limits) are absent.

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% and all 8 properties are documented, including the alias set, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for the 'question' parameter beyond noting the tool 'fills arguments.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function with scope: routing a natural-language question to one of 6,705 tools across 1765 sources, filling arguments, and returning a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, which are explicitly named.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions') and when to step up, naming the exact alternatives: ask_pipeworx_grounded for a single hallucination-resistant answer with verbatim evidence, deep_research for broad multi-part questions. Also covers 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.