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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it routes to one of 5,798 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers, and emits stable citation URIs. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey without contradicting them.

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 stays dense: domains, trigger phrases, examples, and upgrade paths each earn their place. Minor structural artifacts like the truncated grounded condition keep it from being perfectly clean.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the answer looks like ('structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs'), when to use it, and when to switch to alternatives. It leaves some ambiguity around exact failure/fallback behavior and the incomplete grounded condition, but overall an agent has enough to call it 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%, so the schema already explains the single required parameter and its aliases fully. The description contributes examples and phrasing triggers, but adds little semantic detail about the parameter itself; 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 a specific purpose: route factual/current-data questions to the right verified source and return a structured answer with pipeworx:// citations. It differentiates itself from web search and nearby siblings by listing covered domains and explicit trigger phrases, so an agent can identify when this tool applies.

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 strong usage guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever the user asks...', 'START HERE for most questions', and names alternatives with conditions. However, one alternative condition is truncated ('for ... use ask_pipeworx_grounded'), so not every routing decision is fully specified.

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