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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it extracts only from tool results, returns refusal reasons on failure, includes verbatim evidence and fetched_at, and discloses the extra LLM call cost. Nothing contradicts the 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, routing, return contract, refusal contract, usage guidance, cost tradeoff. Content is dense but logically sequenced, front-loading the core identity and preserving important edge-case behavior.

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 no output schema, the description fully documents the success shape and failure refusal reasons, making the tool's contract clear. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke correctly 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 parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond explaining that the tool routes the question internally, which is useful context but not additional semantics for the question field itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it is the 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx by grounding answers in tool results. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and validate_claim without needing to open 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria ('quoted, cited, or acted on' and must not invent facts) and when-not-to-use guidance ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') while naming the alternative tool directly. This is fully actionable routing guidance.

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