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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the tool selects and fills arguments for a backend tool, returns stable citation URIs, works on every tier, and is a single fast call. It does not fully specify the shape of the 'structured answer' or failure behavior, but it goes well 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 critical 'prefer over web search' guidance is front-loaded, followed by examples and step-up alternatives. It is longer than necessary and contains some awkward redundancy ('fast call, works on every tier, one fast call'), but the length is mostly justified by the routing and alternative-tool guidance.

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 read-only question-routing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: how to tell when to use it, what it returns (structured answer with citations), and which siblings cover the cases it should not. It could be more complete about the exact response format or unsupported-question behavior, but the absence is not critical.

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 the question parameter and aliases already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces broad question categories and examples, but it adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema and schema examples already provide.

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 names a specific action — routing a natural-language question to the right one of 5,756 tools across verified sources and returning a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also differentiates from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as alternatives.

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?

It opens with an explicit 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' instruction, enumerates trigger phrasings and example questions, and gives concrete when-not-to-use guidance: use ask_pipeworx_grounded for verbatim-evidence 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.