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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it transparently says the tool routes to the right source tool, fills arguments, returns structured data with stable pipeworx:// citations, and works on every tier in one fast call. There is no contradiction with 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 intentionally long but front-loaded with its core purpose and usage triggers, then examples, then escalation paths. It earns most of its length, though some phrases like "PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH" and "START HERE" are repeated and the example list could be slightly trimmed.

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 complex router tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains return value shape (structured answer with citation URIs), performance characteristics (one fast call, all tiers), supported domains, invocation triggers, and alternatives. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and roughly what to expect back.

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% — all six properties are documented as aliases for the single required natural-language `question`. The description reinforces that input is a natural-language question and offers examples, but it adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 names a specific verb/role — routes the question to the right tool among 5,724 across 1,497 sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It also differentiates from close siblings (ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) by naming exactly when each is the upgrade, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicit guidance is everywhere: "PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH", "START HERE for most questions", and a set of trigger phrases like "what is", "look up", "find", "get the latest". It also states when NOT to use it and which sibling to step up to (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant evidence, deep_research for broad/multi-part fan-out).

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