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

Annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description goes beyond by explaining the internal behavior: routing, argument filling, extraction only from tool result, explicit refusal reasons, and the extra LLM call cost. There is no contradiction; the read-only hint aligns with 'fetches the data' and 'extracts the answer'.

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?

Every sentence carries important information: mode, mechanics, return format, refusal reasons, usage context, and cost trade-off. The description is dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then layering details.

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 tool with this complexity (routing across 5,798 tools, no output schema), the description fully compensates: it specifies success and refusal response shapes, notes the extra LLM call, gives usage guardrails, and clarifies the distinction from ask_pipeworx. Nothing necessary for correct invocation or behavior prediction is missing.

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% and the parameter description already explains the question accepts aliases. The tool description adds context about how the question is processed (routing, argument filling) but nothing that changes parameter meaning or format. 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 mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and differentiates it from ask_pipeworx by explaining it extracts answers using ONLY the tool result. It also details the success and refusal return shapes, making it unambiguous what this tool does versus siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). This is direct, actionable guidance that distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx.

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