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

Annotations already establish a safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the extra LLM call cost, the full refusal contract with all five refusal_reason values, and the constraint that answers are extracted using ONLY the tool result content. 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?

Single dense paragraph with zero redundancy: purpose, routing behavior, return shape, refusal contract, usage rule, and cost tradeoff each earn their place. The key differentiator is front-loaded in the first clause, and the longer return-format detail is justified because there is no output schema to carry that 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly documents the return shape and refusal semantics in-band. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage, safety annotations, and explicit routing guidance, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool 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% and the schema itself fully documents the question parameter and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific, differentiated purpose: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It explicitly anchors to its sibling ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx') and then distinguishes itself through evidence-grounded extraction and refusal behavior, making it immediately separable from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' with concrete high-stakes domains (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use directive with the alternative named and justified: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' because of the extra LLM call cost.

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