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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains the routing/fetching pipeline, the exact success and refusal return shapes, the refusal reason enum, and the extra LLM call cost. This goes far beyond the structured metadata and gives the agent a realistic model of how the tool behaves.

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: mode identification, pipeline overview, return contract on success and refusal, usage context, and cost tradeoff. It front-loads the most important distinction and avoids filler.

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 no output schema, the description's explicit return shape and refusal reasons make the contract fully knowable. It also covers when to use it, what it might refuse, and the cost consideration, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every alias documented in the input schema, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not attempt to; the baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 names a specific mode ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx via the added extraction step. The resource and behavior are concrete: route, fetch, extract, and either answer or refuse. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from similar 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts'), provides example domains, and names the alternative with a preference rule ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). This is ideal routing guidance: clear condition, alternative, and tradeoff.

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