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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: extraction is restricted to tool-result content, explicit refusal reasons are enumerated, and an extra LLM call cost is disclosed. No contradiction with 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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core concept and followed by return formats, use cases, and cost tradeoff. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly longer than the simplest tools need.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the success return shape, exact refusal reasons, when to use, and cost considerations. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode' for high-stakes reads, explicitly contrasting with ask_pipeworx. Specific verb and resource make the tool's function unmistakable and distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Directly names the alternative and the cost tradeoff.

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