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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the tool routes to thousands of sources, fills arguments automatically, works on every tier, makes one fast call, and returns stable citation URIs. It also explains behavior for breaking news and live sources. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the key preference statement and organized around when to use, how it works, and when to choose alternatives. It is somewhat long, with some repetition of question types, but the examples and sibling comparisons earn their place for a broad default entry-point tool.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description supplies all needed context: input form, scope of coverage, output format (structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs), default status, and clear escalation paths to grounded research or deep research. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%: the question parameter and all five aliases are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate. The examples reinforce that input should be natural language, but they add little meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: it routes a natural-language question to one of 5,724 tools across 1,497 verified sources and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by contrasting 'hallucination-resistant single answer' and 'broad/multi-part question' 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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions — this is the default entry point', and 'Step up only when needed' with named alternatives. It also lists trigger phrases ('what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest') and concrete example questions.

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