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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description goes well beyond them by detailing the grounded extraction process and the exact refusal reasons such as not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, and llm_error. It also discloses the extra cost tradeoff and the explicit refusal behavior when data doesn't directly answer.

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: it defines the mode, contrasts with ask_pipeworx, specifies the return contract, lists refusal reasons, gives concrete use cases, and captures the cost tradeoff. It is front-loaded with the most important purpose and maintains a clear, scannable structure.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the success response shape and all possible refusal reasons. It also provides routing context, cost implications, and usage guidance, while the input schema covers the single question parameter. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

The input schema already documents the sole meaningful parameter, question, at 100% coverage, including multiple aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying it 'fills arguments' as part of routing, which is relevant but not needed for the schema to be understood. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 this is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, and explicitly distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx by describing the same routing but grounded extraction. It names the exact behavior: pick a tool, fill arguments, fetch data, and extract the answer only from the tool result. This is specific and unambiguous.

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: use whenever the answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and when the agent must not invent facts, with concrete domains like financial verdicts, legal claims, and medical lookups. It also tells the agent when not to use it by saying to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups because this mode costs an extra LLM call.

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