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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond by disclosing the refusal mechanism with specific refusal_reason values, the exact return structure, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradictions; the description enriches the behavioral profile substantially.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes: purpose, mechanism, return format, refusal reasons, usage contexts, and cost tradeoff. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition and ends with the alternative preference. Slightly verbose but justified by the complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape on success and failure, including all refusal_reason enums. It also covers routing behavior and cost implications. For a tool of this complexity (multi-step, refusal logic), nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% — all six parameters are documented as aliases for the question. The description doesn't add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation fully.

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: hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. It clearly explains the mechanism (routes to tool, fetches data, extracts answer only from result) and differentiates from ask_pipeworx by noting the grounded behavior. It stands out from siblings by defining the value proposition.

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 states when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' and gives concrete contexts (financial verdicts, legal claims, etc.). Also names the alternative: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' and explains cost tradeoff. Clear exclusion criteria.

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