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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context rather than carry the full burden. It does add useful behavioral detail by explaining that the tool routes to external tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It does not describe failure modes or rate limits, but those are not essential given the annotation profile.

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 substantially longer than needed and contains noticeable redundancy: 'START HERE' appears twice, 'even if web search could also answer it' appears twice, and 'Use whenever the user asks...' is repeated. There is also a garbled fragment ('For a polynomial thing?') that hurts clarity and trust in the definition.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the input type, example queries, answer format with citations, and the main sibling alternatives. It could be improved by explaining more about the shape of the structured answer or how to handle ambiguous questions, but the core invocation context is sufficiently covered.

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 documents all parameters at 100% coverage, including the question parameter and its aliases, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic signal by providing concrete example questions and trigger phrases like 'what is', 'look up', 'find', and 'current', which help the agent understand what kind of input is expected.

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 the tool as a question router that picks from 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also distinguishes itself from web search and sibling tools by naming what it is preferred for, so an agent can identify it without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search, use for factual questions about real-world data, and start here for most questions. It also names specific alternatives for different cases, including deep_research for broad multi-part questions, remember/recall for private or closed-context answers, ask_pipeworx_grounded for verifiable grounded answers, and route for tool routing decisions.

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