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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool routes to internal tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, works on all tiers, and handles live news queries. It does not disclose latency or failure behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 long but front-loaded with the most important instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and densely packs useful information: domain coverage, examples, citations, tier availability, and sibling routing. Some statistics and examples could be trimmed, but they meaningfully support tool selection and invocation.

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 broad question-routing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent should expect in return, when to use it, when not to use it, and how to formulate inputs via examples. It also names sibling tools for escalation paths, leaving no major gap for an agent to select and call 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 description coverage is 100%, and all six parameters are aliases for the same natural-language question field, clearly documented in the schema. The description reinforces the semantics by framing the input as a factual question but does not add much beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 precise function: it routes questions to one of thousands of tools across verified sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by naming when those alternatives are preferable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer over web search, use for factual questions about real-world entities/events/numbers, and start here for most questions. It also gives exclusion criteria for stepping up to ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research, making tool selection unambiguous.

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