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

Even though annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it extracts answers only from tool results, returns a detailed structured response with verbatim evidence, and can explicitly refuse with a defined refusal_reason enum. 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 dense but front-loaded with the key idea, then efficiently covers routing, behavioral guarantees, return shape, refusal reasons, usage contexts, and cost trade-off. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the success response fields and the refusal response shape, including the possible refusal reasons. Combined with the usage and cost guidance, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, and the schema thoroughly documents the single question parameter and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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, high-value purpose: a hallucination-resistant grounded answer mode for high-stakes reads. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx while noting shared routing, making its role among siblings clear.

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 ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on'), cites concrete high-stakes domains, and names the alternative to prefer for casual lookups (ask_pipeworx). This fully routes an agent to the right tool.

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