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

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it uses only tool-result content, returns explicit refusal reasons, provides a structured response shape, and costs one extra LLM call. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description adds valuable complementary detail without contradiction.

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 and information-dense: it leads with the core purpose, then covers return format, refusal contract, use cases, and cost trade-offs. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 this complexity, the description is complete: it explains the routing mechanism, guarantees grounded answers, documents success and refusal shapes, gives concrete use categories, and tells the caller when to choose the cheaper sibling. No material gap remains.

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 schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description contributes context about high-stakes usage but adds no new parameter-level semantics, 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 clearly identifies this as a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer mode for high-stakes reads, with a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It also explicitly distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx by describing the same routing but stricter answer extraction behavior.

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 states when to use this tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and advises preferring it for casual lookups, giving clear routing guidance.

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