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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds routing behavior (routes to one of 5,954 tools across 1551 sources), return format (structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs), and free-account tier info. It does not disclose latency/pagination or failure modes, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', but the description is long and repetitive, listing many example categories and trigger phrases that overlap with the examples already in the schema and with each other. Several sentences restate the same routing claim.

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 read-only routing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing behavior, return format (citations), and sibling alternatives. It omits error behavior and rate limits, but the core completeness requirement is met with annotations covering safety.

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 all six aliases with the 'Alias for question' pattern. The description does not add syntax, format, or length guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (routes the question, fills arguments, returns structured answer) and resource (authoritative structured data across 1551 verified sources). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and characterizing itself as the default entry point.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (any factual question, even if web search could answer), when-not/step-up conditions for ask_pipeworx_grounded (hallucination-resistant single answer) and deep_research (broad multi-part question). 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' gives a clear decision rule versus the most common alternative.

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