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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it routes questions to other tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not contradict 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 long but information-dense. It front-loads the most important instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and follows with the exact scenarios, examples, and alternative routes. While slightly verbose, each section earns its place given the tool's broad router role.

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 complex router tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, what types of questions it handles, when not to use it, which siblings to use instead, and what output format to expect (structured answer with citation URIs).

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% (all parameters are aliases for 'question'). The description adds value by clarifying the expected input is a natural-language factual query, listing trigger phrases, and providing six diverse examples. This goes beyond the schema's minimal alias descriptions.

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 purpose: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for questions about current or historical data' and details the mechanism of routing to 5,743 tools and returning structured answers with citation URIs. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to alternatives 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?

Provides very explicit guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' with a broad list of domains, trigger phrases like 'what is', 'look up', 'find', and concrete examples. It also lists exclusions and routes to named alternatives: ai_visibility_check, deep_research, ask_pipeworx_grounded, ask_pipeworx_beta, and polymarket_* tools.

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