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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those hints: a success/refusal contract with an explicit refusal_reason enum, evidence as a verbatim quote, and a note that it costs one extra LLM call. This is genuinely useful context not inferable from 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?

Three dense, information-bearing sentences lead with the core purpose, then explain the mechanism, return shapes, refusal reasons, and usage trade-off. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content. Every clause earns its place.

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 having no output schema, the description fully specifies the success return shape ({answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at}) and the refusal shape (answer:null with a closed enum of refusal_reason values). It also covers cost and selection guidance. For a read-only tool with one effective parameter and multiple aliases, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the schema documents the primary 'question' parameter and all five aliases, including that they are interchangeable. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate. It gains no additional credit for param semantics because it doesn't elaborate on formats or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: an answer mode that routes through Pipeworx tools and extracts answers using only the tool result. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the grounded, hallucination-resistant behavior. The purpose is unmistakable even before opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts.' It also names the alternative and gives a cost-based exclusion: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This gives the agent clear selection criteria with no inference needed.

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