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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description goes well beyond them. It discloses the success response shape, the refusal contract with specific refusal_reason enums (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.), that the answer is grounded only in the tool result, and the cost tradeoff. No contradictions 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 dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, mechanism, success/refusal contract, when to use, when to avoid. It front-loads the core value proposition and leads with 'Hallucination-resistant' before the detailed contract. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape and refusal reasons. It also covers routing scale, grounding constraints, cost, and the alternative tool. Combined with a complete input schema and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly in context.

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 fully documents the question parameter and all aliases. The tool description does not add param-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the baseline rule. The description's 'fills arguments' is a general behavior statement, not parameter semantics.

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 states a specific purpose: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' that 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains.' It explicitly differentiates from ask_pipeworx by name ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx') and from ask_pipeworx_beta, making the tool's role in the sibling family unambiguous. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' with concrete examples. It also states when not to use it: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups,' and the reason is quantified ('Costs one extra LLM call'). This is ideal routing guidance.

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