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

It discloses key behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint: the tool extracts answers exclusively from tool results, returns evidence as a verbatim quote, and refuses rather than fabricating when data is insufficient. The explicit refusal reason enum and output shape give the agent accurate expectations for failure modes.

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: it front-loads the core purpose, explains behavior, gives the output shape and refusal reasons, and closes with usage guidance and cost tradeoff. It is structured to quickly inform an agent without padding.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by fully describing the success and refusal response shapes. It also explains the routing mechanism, grounding behavior, cost, and when to prefer the sibling tool, making it complete for both selection and invocation.

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 already fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is needed; 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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: a grounded, hallucination-resistant answer mode that extracts answers only from tool results. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing verified extraction and explicit refusal behavior, so the agent can tell them apart.

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 states when to use the tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts, with concrete domains listed. It also names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for casual lookups and notes the extra LLM call cost, providing clear routing guidance.

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