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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive characteristics, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail on top: it routes questions to an underlying tool network, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It does not disclose failure behavior for unanswered questions, but the annotations already cover the safety 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 front-loaded with the key imperative ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and organized around scope, use cases, examples, and alternatives. It is longer than strictly necessary due to the domain enumeration and five examples, but each part contributes to preventing misuse of the routing 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 broad scope and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior: a structured answer with stable citation URIs. It covers when to use it, what input it expects, and which sibling tools to switch to for specialized cases. A small gap is not describing how it handles ambiguous or unsupported questions, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the same natural-language question. The description reinforces natural-language input and provides helpful example questions, but it mostly stays at the same level of specificity as the schema; it adds no new constraint or format detail beyond the baseline.

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 factual question-answering router: it routes to 5,743 tools across 1,500 verified sources and returns structured answers with stable Pipeworx citation URIs. It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the default ('START HERE for most questions') and explicitly contrasting with ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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 factual/current/historical questions, even when web search could answer, and lists concrete query examples. It also states when not to use it and which alternatives to select: ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single 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.