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 depth beyond those: it explains that the tool routes to sub-tools, fills arguments automatically, and returns stable citation URIs. This gives an agent a clear model of what happens when the tool is invoked, and nothing in the description contradicts 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 front-loaded with its most important guidance and contains rich examples, but it is wordy and repetitive: "even if web search could also answer it" appears more than once, and the long list of data domains could be tightened. It is not poorly organized, but it does not meet the high standard of every sentence earning its place.

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 simple one-required-parameter schema, the rich annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what kinds of questions to pass, and what the returned answer will look like (structured output with citation URIs). It could add more about output shape or failure cases, but those are not essential for a read-only routing tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the main `question` parameter is described as a natural-language request, and every alias is documented. The description's examples and trigger phrases reinforce usage but do not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: it routes factual questions to one of 5,767 tools across 1,506 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. This is a specific verb-plus-resource description that goes well beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_beta or ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 trigger phrases ("what is", "look up", "find", "get the latest", "how much", "current"), specific domains (SEC filings, FDA data, FRED/BLS, patents, news, stocks, etc.), and says to prefer this tool over web search even when web search could answer. It also says "START HERE for most questions," which gives clear priority guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or named alternative sibling tools, so it is not a full 5.

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