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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the tool routes to one of 5,714 tools across 1,495 sources, fills arguments, and returns answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 each section earns its place: preference warning, domain list, behavior description, trigger phrases, and examples. It is front-loaded with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and remains readable despite the detail.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what input should look like, what the tool does internally, and what the output will contain (structured answer with citation URIs). The examples and 'START HERE' guidance make it effectively complete for agent selection and invocation.

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?

The schema already covers all six parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by stressing that 'question' accepts natural language and that query, q, prompt, text, and input are aliases, while examples clarify the expected phrasing. This adds value beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 states the tool's function: it routes factual questions to the appropriate source tools and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It explicitly lists supported domains and gives example queries, making the resource and scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from generic web search.

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 guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'USE WHENEVER the user asks...' with trigger phrases and concrete examples. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling ask_pipeworx variants or deep_research, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use coverage.

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