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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key runtime behavior: refusal reasons, output shape, evidence verbatim, confidence, and the extra LLM call cost. There is no contradiction with the annotations; readOnlyHint and destructiveHint:false align with the non-destructive nature described.

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 purpose and efficiently organized into behavior, use cases, and trade-offs. It is slightly repetitive around the routing phrase and the 'use whenever' clause, but every sentence carries substantive decision-relevant information.

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 compensates by fully specifying the success return shape, the refusal reasons, and when refusals occur. It also provides cost trade-offs and comparison to the sibling tool, making the context complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 schema already covers all six parameters, including aliases, with full descriptions at 100% coverage. The tool description does not need to add much; it reinforces that the question is in natural language but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies this as a hallucination-resistant grounded answer mode for high-stakes reads, and distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing evidence-only extraction and refusal behavior. It states exactly what the tool does: route to the right source, fetch data, and extract an answer only from the returned content.

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: use when answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented, with concrete examples like financial verdicts and legal claims. It also explicitly says to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, making the choice between siblings unambiguous.

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