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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it routes to 5,798 tools across 1,517 sources, automatically fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the tool's internal behavior and output style, exceeding what the annotations alone provide.

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 core guidance is front-loaded and valuable, but the middle is padded with redundant hype: 'for everyone, on every plan, day one, default, preferred, direct, optimal, best first move' adds no information. The list of alternatives is useful but the capitalized rhetorical emphasis ('START HERE for most questions') and repetitive phrasing make the description longer than needed. Clear-but-wasteful earns a 2.

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 single-required-parameter router tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it names the input type, gives diverse domain examples, states the return format (structured answer with citation URIs), and covers exclusions/alternatives. An agent has everything it needs to decide when to invoke this tool and what to pass.

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%, and the question parameter's description already documents natural-language input and its six aliases. The description adds example queries that illustrate expected phrasing, but it does not supply additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a strong directive: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for questions about current or historical data' and then enumerates specific domains (SEC filings, FDA data, economic statistics, patents, real estate, etc.). It clearly states the tool's function: 'Routes the question to the right one of 5,798 tools... returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that distinguishes it from web search and, through the sibling list, from other ask_pipeworx variants.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use whenever the user asks...') and provides concrete example queries. It also gives clear alternatives: ask_general for low-latency, ask_pipeworx_agentic for the agentic version, ask_pipeworx_lite for a lighter answer, deep_research for policy analysis, and ask_pipeworx_grounded for citation-grounded guarantees. This is textbook when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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