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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the strict extraction behavior, exclusive reliance on tool result content, and explicit refusal mechanism with enumerated refusal reasons. It also reveals the extra LLM call cost. This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone cannot provide.

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 each sentence earns its place: behavior, output contract, refusal contract, use cases, and comparison with the sibling. It is front-loaded with the key differentiator and structured to be immediately actionable. No filler or redundant restating of schema information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies success and refusal return shapes and the exact refusal reason enum. It covers when to use, when not to use, and how it differs from the sibling. For a tool of this complexity, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

All 6 parameters are aliases for the same question string, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema already carries the load.

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 identifies the tool as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, with a specific verb ('extracts') and resource (grounded answer from tool results). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by describing the same routing but more constrained output behavior. An agent can immediately tell this apart from its sibling tools.

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 the agent must not invent facts.' It also names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and the condition for preferring it ('casual lookups'), plus a cost trade-off. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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