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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare it a safe, idempotent, open-world read). It discloses the return contract field-by-field, the refusal modes ('not_in_source'|'no_tool_match'|'tool_error'|'data_truncated'|'llm_error'), and the cost/latency tradeoff ('Costs one extra LLM call'). This is exactly the kind of behavior detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and scope, then layers routing, extraction behavior, return contract, and the cost caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the enumerated refusal reasons and return-field list make it slightly heavy, though they earn their place given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully shoulders the return-value burden by specifying the success object and the refusal object, and it names the failure modes. Combined with the routing explanation and cost note, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, and every one of the 8 parameters is documented as an alias of the underlying 'question'. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('grounded answer mode' that routes and extracts), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'Same routing as ask_pipeworx — ... then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains.' An agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). The selection condition is fully specified.

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