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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it fills arguments automatically, returns stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and routes to live news when relevant. There is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 most important instruction and uses examples and alternatives efficiently. It is slightly long and somewhat redundant between 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'Use whenever', so it doesn't quite earn a 5, but every major section clearly earns 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?

For a high-complexity router tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what inputs to provide, what the tool does internally, what kind of answer is returned, and when to choose a sibling tool instead. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly in most situations.

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% description coverage: all six properties are documented as aliases for the single 'question' parameter. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it only reinforces the natural-language input expectation with examples. 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 clearly states what the tool does: it routes a natural-language question to one of 5,767 tools across 1,506 verified sources and returns a structured answer with citation URIs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by presenting itself as the default ('START HERE for most questions') and 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?

The description is explicit about when to prefer it over web search, when to use it for factual questions, and even provides alternatives: ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded answers, deep_research for broad/multi-part questions, and news-feeds packs for breaking news. This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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