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

The description discloses key behavior: the tool routes questions across many sources, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. There is no contradiction between the description and 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 the most important guidance, but it is noticeably bloated and repetitive. The phrase 'even if web search could also answer it' appears twice, and the same six example queries are listed twice. A single example list and one 'prefer over web search' statement would carry the same meaning more efficiently.

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?

The description is quite complete for a complex routing tool: it lists covered domains, trigger phrases, example questions, and the citation-bearing return format. Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns at a usable level. It leaves minor details unstated, such as exact response structure or error behavior, but these are not critical for selecting or invoking the 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 already provides 100% coverage of the single meaningful parameter, `question`, including all aliases. The description contributes example queries and domain guidance, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 natural-language questions to one of 5,798 tools across verified sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. It also distinguishes itself from web search by listing the kinds of authoritative data it covers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded or ask_pipeworx_beta.

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 positive usage guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Use whenever the user asks...', and 'START HERE for most questions'. It even says to use it 'even if web search could also answer it', which clarifies that web search is not a preferred fallback for factual queries. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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