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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it routes to an internal tool ecosystem, fills arguments automatically, and returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not contradict the annotations, and the added behavioral detail is meaningful.

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 longer than average but front-loaded with the most actionable guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and every section earns its place: scope, trigger phrases, examples, and routing to alternatives. The sentence about grounded answers is slightly awkward but not bloated or redundant.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what response to expect: a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also covers when to start here, when to escalate to siblings, and what kinds of questions are in scope. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly in most situations.

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%: the single meaningful parameter, question, is fully documented with aliases q, text, input, query, and prompt. The description reinforces that input is a natural-language question but adds no parameter-specific semantics 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 states a specific function: route factual questions to one of 5,718 tools across 1,496 verified sources and return structured answers with citation URIs. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, and gives concrete example questions. This is far beyond a tautology.

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 to prefer this over web search, lists trigger phrases like 'what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', and gives examples. It also names alternatives and when to use them: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answers, deep_research for broad multi-part questions. This is exemplary guidance.

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