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 useful behavioral context: it routes internally, fills arguments for sub-tools, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also states how breaking-news queries are handled. It does not discuss failure modes or limits, but it adds meaningful transparency beyond the 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 longer than average but well organized: scope, mechanism, trigger phrases/examples, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'. Minor redundancy between 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'even if web search could also answer it' keeps it from a perfect score.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential information: coverage domains, invocation triggers, example queries, expected return format (structured answer with citation URIs), and when to use sibling tools instead. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description adds value by providing concrete example inputs and trigger phrases that clarify the expected shape of the question parameter, going beyond the schema's generic 'natural language' description.

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 what the tool does: it routes a factual question to one of 5,798 tools across 1,517 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making its role as the general-purpose factual-questions router explicit.

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 for current/historical data, and use whenever the user asks 'what is', 'look up', 'find', 'get the latest', 'how much', 'current', or any factual real-world question. It provides concrete examples and names the specific alternatives with the conditions for choosing them, such as ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded citation-exact answers and deep_research for broad multi-part questions.

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