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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description explains the routing behavior, that it fills in downstream arguments, returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and already covers live news. This gives the agent realistic expectations of what calling the tool does.

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 nearly every sentence carries operational value: trigger phrases, domain list, example queries, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' directive, though a little redundancy remains between that directive and the later 'even if web search could also answer it' clause.

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 high-complexity meta-router with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (structured answer with citation URIs), when to use it, what it handles, and how it differs from deep_research. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 every alias (q, text, input, query, prompt, question) is documented, so the baseline applies. The description adds example natural-language questions but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 job: route factual questions to the right PipeWorx tool from 5,767 tools across 1,506 sources and return a cited structured answer. It also distinguishes itself from web search and from deep_research, so an agent sees what makes this tool different.

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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest'), example queries, and a clear default ('START HERE for most questions'). It also gives a when-not-to-use rule: broad multi-part questions should go to deep_research, and breaking-news coverage is already handled here.

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