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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it routes to internal tools, auto-fills arguments, and returns pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not cover failure modes or latency, but the safety profile is already covered by 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 well-organized: it front-loads the key preference, then gives triggers, examples, and explicit alternative routing. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the trigger-phrase list and examples overlap somewhat and could be trimmed without much loss.

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 router tool with many siblings and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to prefer it, when not to use it, which sibling to choose instead, supported domains, and the nature of the returned citations, so an agent can select and invoke 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%, so the schema fully documents the six aliases for the natural-language question parameter. The description adds example queries but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline-3 case.

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 names the core action explicitly: it routes questions to one of 5,798 tools across verified sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. It also differentiates itself from several siblings like entity_profile, compare_entities, and deep_research, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search for factual/current/historical data, with trigger phrases and concrete examples. It also names specific alternatives and the conditions under which each should be chosen, leaving little to inference.

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