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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints; the description adds meaningful behavior by explaining that it routes to thousands of tools, auto-fills arguments, and returns citations with stable URIs. It scopes the answer to authoritative structured data, though it does not discuss edge cases like unsupported queries or response latency.

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 front-loaded with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and each subsequent section adds routing, example, or alternative value. It is longer than minimal, but the density is mostly justified; the trailing enumeration of sibling conditions is slightly heavy.

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 one-required-param router with no output schema, the description covers selection triggers, examples, alternatives, and return behavior. The citation-URI description compensates for the missing output schema, so an agent has enough context to call it 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?

All six parameters are already described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description earns extra by providing realistic example queries that clarify acceptable natural-language input and the alias flexibility, even though it does not add constraints 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 identifies a specific action: routes a natural-language question to one of 5,798 verified-data tools, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citations. It clearly distinguishes this tool from web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and compare_entities.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer it over web search for current/historical factual data, lists trigger phrases and example queries, and names alternatives: ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding, compare_entities for comparison, and DEFAULT web search for single-best web results. This leaves little ambiguity about when to select it.

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