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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing the full return contract on both success and refusal, listing exact refusal_reason values, stating it returns verbatim evidence, and revealing the extra LLM call cost. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotations and critical for an agent to trust the result.

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 compact yet information-dense: it covers the mechanism, success/refusal contracts, exact use cases, cost tradeoff, and preferred alternative in a tightly organized paragraph. Every sentence earns its place and the core differentiator (grounded extraction) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly takes on the burden of explaining return values and error/refusal outcomes. It gives success and failure shapes, refusal reasons, the cost implication, and the alternative tool. For a tool that routes over thousands of tools and sources, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not clarify how 'mode' or 'agent' choices relate to the grounded behavior, but since the schema defines them clearly, no deduction is needed.

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 very specific purpose: a hallucination-resistant grounded answering mode for high-stakes reads. It clearly explains what makes it different from the sibling ask_pipeworx (same routing, but extraction only from tool results) and even names the sibling explicitly. The verb+resource+scope is precise and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). It also explicitly prefers ask_pipeworx for casual lookups and notes the extra LLM call cost, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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