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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it routes questions to the right tool among thousands, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but well-organized: the preference directive is front-loaded, followed by the tool's mechanism, trigger phrases, examples, and sibling escalation rules. It is longer than ideal but every sentence earns its place given the broad scope of the 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?

The description is remarkably complete for a single-parameter routing tool: it covers when to use it, what it does, how it returns results (structured answer with citation URIs), and when to prefer siblings. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that the answer is structured with stable citations, though return format details are left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the description explains that the question is natural language input, which maps to the single required 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description adds context about how the question gets used (routed and filled into a sub-tool) but doesn't add per-parameter detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with an explicit directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and clearly identifies the tool as a question-routing system for authoritative structured data from thousands of sources. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research and specifying when those alternatives should be used instead.

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 provides extensive usage guidance: it lists exact domains (SEC, FDA, FRED/BLS, USPTO, ATTOM, weather, clinical trials, stocks, crypto, sports, etc.), gives trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest'), supplies concrete examples, and explicitly names sibling alternatives with their selection conditions.

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