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

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to add side-effect information. It does describe the output format (answer with evidence, refusal reasons) which adds some behavioral transparency beyond the annotations, but not significantly more than the baseline.

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 verbose and repetitive, repeating the routing and extraction process twice and listing refusal reasons redundantly. While it is structured in three sentences, the redundancy makes it less concise than necessary, and it could be streamlined to focus on the key differentiator of groundedness.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for the tool: it explains the high-stakes usage scenario, the output format including evidence and refusal reasons, and the condition under which to use it. Given the simplicity of the tool (single required parameter) and lack of output schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with parameter descriptions and aliases. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is already in the input schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the tool's purpose as a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode' that extracts answers only from tool results. It specifies that it is for high-stakes reads and explicitly differentiates it from the standard ask_pipeworx tool, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and when not to use it: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This provides clear, actionable guidance on selecting between the two similar tools.

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