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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by revealing it 'routes the question', 'fills arguments', and returns 'structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs'. It does not contradict annotations, and adds context about the nature of the output and the tool's default behavior.

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: it front-loads the key directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), uses explicit examples, and logically separates usage guidance from alternatives. Every section serves a purpose, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

Given the tool's broad scope and complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, input format, output nature (citations), when to use it, and when to use alternatives. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all its aliases with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, just reinforces that it accepts natural language questions. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verb ('ask'), a resource ('pipeworx'), and the broad scope of questions it handles (SEC filings, FDA data, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making it clear this is the default routing tool.

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 explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'Use whenever the user asks...', listing trigger phrases. It also gives clear escalation criteria: 'Step up only when needed' to ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded answers or deep_research for multi-part questions. This is exceptional when/when-not guidance.

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