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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral detail: answers are extracted only from tool results, refusals are explicit with specific reasons, output shape includes evidence verbatim quotes and confidence, and it costs an extra LLM call. No contradiction 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?

The description is information-dense but well-structured: first the core definition, then the refusal behavior, then usage guidance and cost trade-off. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 rich annotations, a fully covered input schema, and a clear behavioral contract, the description provides complete guidance. It explains return shape, refusal semantics, when to use, when to prefer the sibling, and the cost trade-off. No critical missing information.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not need to add parameter details because the schema already lists all aliases and each field is described. The description's mention of 'fills arguments' adds context but not parameter-level semantics.

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 verb ('answer mode'), resource (Pipeworx), and behavior (extracts answer using only tool result contents, with explicit refusal). It clearly differentiates from ask_pipeworx by naming the same routing but adding the grounded extraction guarantee.

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 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' and gives cost guidance ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions, and names the alternative.

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