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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: extraction is limited to tool output, refusals include specific reason values, and there is an extra LLM call cost. There is no contradiction with 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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanism, return contract, usage criteria, and cost/alternative. Each clause adds information needed for correct selection and invocation, with 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully defines both success and refusal return shapes, including refusal reasons. It also covers tool family routing, when to use it, and the trade-off vs ask_pipeworx, leaving no critical gap for an agent to guess.

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 already documents the single meaningful parameter, question, along with aliases. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 opens with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and then states the mechanism: route, fetch, and extract using only tool-result content. It clearly differentiates from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction and refusal behavior, so an agent can distinguish the mode without needing to compare schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when an answer 'will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and the agent must not invent facts, and to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. This gives both inclusion and exclusion criteria plus a named alternative.

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