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

Beyond annotations for read-only and idempotent behavior, the description details the exact success return shape, the explicit refusal reasons, evidence as a verbatim quote, and the extra LLM call cost. This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond what annotations already offer.

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 earns its place: purpose, mechanism, return/refusal format, use cases, and cost tradeoff. It is front-loaded with the most critical differentiator and contains no filler.

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 both success and refusal response shapes, explains the grounding mechanism, and gives cost-based selection guidance. An agent has everything needed to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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 aliases for the question parameter are fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is needed given full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and clearly states the tool 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains.' This distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta while giving a specific, actionable purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' and directly names the alternative: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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