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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: it describes the internal routing mechanism, the strict evidence-grounded extraction, the exact success and refusal response shapes, and the extra LLM call cost. This goes well beyond what annotations 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 front-loaded with the core distinguishing behavior, then gives concrete return/refusal payloads, then usage guidance and cost tradeoff. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 complex, routing-based tool with multiple possible failure modes, the description is complete: it explains what happens on success, what happens on refusal, when to prefer the sibling, and what the cost difference is. The rich annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all six parameters as aliases for 'question'. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable because the sole meaningful parameter is a natural-language question and the schema documents it thoroughly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific purpose: a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads that routes like ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from tool results. This clearly distinguishes it from the plain ask_pipeworx sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also names the alternative and the cost tradeoff, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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