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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It explains the grounded extraction mechanism, the exact success return shape, the full set of refusal reasons, and the extra LLM call cost. It also portrays the tool's refusal behavior when data doesn't directly answer, which is essential for high-stakes use. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint is present.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: mode definition, mechanism, return contract, refusal contract, use cases, and cost trade-off. It is front-loaded with the most important behavioral and safety cues before the output contract details. There is no filler or redundant rephrasing of the schema.

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 fully documenting both the success response and the refusal response. It also covers the operational trade-off, use cases, and the routing behavior in enough detail for an agent to invoke it confidently and interpret results correctly. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description does not add much parameter-specific guidance beyond the overall purpose, but it doesn't need to because the schema is complete. The baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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-plus-resource goal: a hallucination-resistant answer mode that extracts answers only from fetched tool results. It clearly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction and refusal behavior. This is more than a restatement of the title and gives an agent an accurate mental model of 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 facts must not be invented, with concrete domains like financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, and public statements. It also names ask_pipeworx as the cheaper alternative for casual lookups, giving both inclusion and exclusion guidance.

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