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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it routes across 5,743 tools, works on every tier, makes one fast call, and returns stable citation URIs. It does not disclose potential failure modes or rate limits, but for a read-only router the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 every section serves a routing decision: preference, mechanics, triggers, examples, default status, and step-up alternatives. It is front-loaded with the most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and avoids redundant restatement of the schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format: structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also covers the breadth of domains, example queries, sibling-tool escalation, and default behavior, making it complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the question field. The description doesn't need to add parameter details; the schema already carries that burden. Examples in the schema reinforce the expected natural-language input.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: ask_pipeworx routes questions to the right tool among thousands of verified sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by contrasting their use cases.

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 is explicit about when to use it ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions'), gives concrete examples, and states when to step up to alternatives ('for a hallucination-resistant single answer... use ask_pipeworx_grounded; for a broad/multi-part question... use deep_research').

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