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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the full response contract: a success shape with {answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} and a refusal shape with enumerated reasons. It also reveals the underlying routing behavior and the extra LLM call cost. These are significant behavioral details not captured in the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and then flows logically through routing, return format, usage guidance, and cost trade-off. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is dense but well-structured and not bloated.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return values and failure modes, making the behavior predictable. It covers when to use, what it returns, how it behaves in failure cases, the cost implication, and the sibling alternative. There are no missing pieces an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 schema itself documents all aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) for the single required 'question' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond saying the tool routes and fills arguments internally. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing extraction 'using ONLY what the tool result contains' and returning evidence. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from the plain ask_pipeworx tool.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' with concrete examples. It also states the trade-off and alternative: 'Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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