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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns evidence as verbatim quotes, emits explicit refusal reasons, refuses rather than fabricating, and costs an extra LLM call. The return shape and refusal enum are fully described even though there is no output schema.

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: it states the mode, the routing mechanism, the return contract, the refusal contract, the use case, and the cost trade-off. It is front-loaded with the core differentiator and avoids filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens on success, what happens on refusal, why the tool exists, when to prefer the sibling, and the main limitation. An agent has enough information to invoke it appropriately and interpret its response.

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 the single required question parameter is already well documented with aliases. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the semantic load completely.

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 clearly identifies this as a hallucination-resistant answer mode that routes through Pipeworx and extracts answers only from tool results. It explicitly differentiates itself from its close sibling ask_pipeworx by grounding, evidence, and refusal behavior, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented, with concrete domains like financial verdicts, legal claims, and medical lookups. It also states the cost trade-off and says to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, providing both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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