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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it details the operational flow (routing across many tools, fetching, then extracting only from the result), documents both success and refusal return shapes, and enumerates refusal reasons. This is exactly the kind of transparency that helps an agent know what to expect.

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 phrase earns its place: purpose, mechanism, return format, usage context, and cost tradeoff are compactly organized. The critical differentiator (grounded extraction) is front-loaded, and the guidance ends with a clear preference directive.

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 fully explains return values and failure modes. It also covers the tool's scope (5,798 tools across 1517 sources), its higher cost, and how it relates to the sibling tool. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage for the only substantive parameter (question plus aliases) is 100%, so the schema already explains the argument. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level details, and per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when structured schema carries the 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 description opens with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode' and clearly states it extracts answers using only tool results, distinguishing it from the sibling ask_pipeworx. It names the exact action, resource scope, and the return contract, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' with examples including financial verdicts and legal claims. It also states the tradeoff (extra LLM call) and directs casual lookups to ask_pipeworx, giving agents a clear decision rule.

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