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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: success output shape, verbatim evidence, confidence, and a full refusal_reason enum covering failure modes. It also reveals the extra LLM call cost, which is critical operational context.

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 long but every clause earns its place: routing, behavior, output contract, refusal reasons, use cases, and cost tradeoff. It is somewhat dense and could be tightened, but nothing is 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 complex grounded-answer tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract, all failure modes, usage context, and cost consideration. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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% with clear alias documentation for the single required parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('answer mode'), resource, and behavioral scope: hallucination-resistant grounded answers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx with 'Same routing as ask_pipeworx' while clarifying what makes this variant different.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...' It also names the alternative and gives a preference rule: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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