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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it routes the question to the right tool, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. The read-only, idempotent, open-world annotations are consistent and are usefully supplemented by this routing/citation context.

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 the most important instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by scope, mechanism, and examples. The category list and examples earn their place by making the query semantics concrete without excessive verbiage.

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 query-router tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, how it behaves, and what the output includes (structured answer with citations). It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description need not repeat parameter details. It still adds semantic value by giving concrete example questions and broad categories that illustrate what kind of natural-language input is expected for the required 'question' parameter.

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 identifies ask_pipeworx as a general factual-question router that returns cited structured answers, with a specific resource ('5,908 tools across 1,540 verified sources') and examples. It explicitly positions itself against web search, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search for authoritative data questions, use for trigger phrases like 'look up' or 'current', and 'START HERE for most questions.' It gives no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, and the only named alternative is web search rather than the Pipeworx sibling variants.

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