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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: it discloses the extraction-only policy, the exact success and refusal response shapes, the refusal reason enum, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradictions 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, routing behavior, response contract, when-to-use, and cost/alternative. The critical purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, and the refusal schema is compactly embedded.

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 defines both the success and refusal return shapes, making the contract complete. It also covers the routing scope, grounded extraction policy, use cases, and when not to use it, so an agent has everything needed to 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 the question parameter and all five aliases clearly documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema fully handles this dimension.

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 a specific mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and clearly contrasts it with ask_pipeworx, its closest sibling. The verb 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains' distinguishes its grounded behavior from casual lookup 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and the agent must not invent facts, with concrete domains listed. It also states the alternative and the preference condition: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups', reinforced by the cost tradeoff.

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