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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it routes to other tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. It does not describe failure modes or limitations, but the annotation coverage carries the safety profile.

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 long but well-organized, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and followed by scope, mechanism, triggers, examples, and alternatives. The domain list and examples earn their place because they help an agent decide when to route here. Slightly over-stuffed, but not padded.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return format (structured answer with citations), the breadth of coverage, when to use it, when not to use it, and which sibling to pick instead. The examples cover diverse domains and make invocation straightforward.

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%, with all six properties clearly documented as aliases for the same `question` parameter. The description provides helpful examples and trigger phrases, but it does not add meaningfully beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 clearly states what the tool does: it routes natural-language questions to one of 5,718 tools across 1,496 verified sources and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It explicitly positions itself as 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: factual questions about real-world entities, events, numbers, current or historical data, and even cases where web search could also answer. It names alternatives and their specific conditions: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, deep_research for broad multi-part questions, and notes that breaking news is already handled by this tool.

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