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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is free to add behavioral depth; it adds a lot: refusal semantics with concrete refusal_reason values, the 'ONLY what the tool result contains' extraction rule, the returned payload fields, and the extra LLM call cost. 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 every sentence earns its place: mode, routing, extraction rule, return/refusal contract, use cases, and cost trade-off. The key differentiator is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no filler or redundant restatement of the title appears.

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?

For a tool with one semantic parameter and no output schema, the description fully specifies the success and refusal return contract, the safety profile is covered by annotations, and the routing relationship to ask_pipeworx is clear. An agent has enough to select, invoke, and interpret the result 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself thoroughly documents the single required question parameter, including six aliases. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the structured schema already carries that burden.

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 first phrase 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' identifies a specific variant of a query tool with a clear purpose. 'Same routing as ask_pipeworx' plus 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains' differentiates it from the sibling ask_pipeworx. The verb and resource are explicit and the name is not merely restated.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and lists domains where invention is unacceptable. It also gives a clear alternative condition: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups', plus the cost trade-off. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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