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

The description substantially goes beyond the annotations: it discloses that the answer is constrained to the tool result, specifies the exact return shape and refusal_reason enum, and notes the extra cost. All of this is consistent with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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: core behavior is front-loaded, the response contract is concrete, refusal reasons are enumerated, and the usage trade-off is stated in the final sentence. It is long only because it conveys genuinely useful operational detail, not padding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the absence of an output schema is compensated by a full description of the success and refusal return shapes. The description also covers routing behavior, cost, and when to prefer the sibling. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its 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?

All six parameters are fully documented in the input schema with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying the tool 'fills arguments' during routing, which is fine but not additive enough to exceed the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific purpose with a distinctive verb — 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains' — and explicitly frames this as 'hallucination-resistant answer mode' distinct from ask_pipeworx. It describes the resource, the behavior, and the success/refusal contract clearly, so an agent can tell it apart 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and immediately contrasts it with ask_pipeworx: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' It also explains the extra LLM call cost, giving the agent a concrete criterion for choosing between the two siblings.

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