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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it only extracts from the tool result, returns verbable evidence, issues explicit refusal reasons, and costs an extra LLM call. No contradiction with annoations.

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 fronts the core differentiator, then the response contract, then usage guidance, then the alternative and cost. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies both success and failure response shapes, refusal reasons, usage conditions, and the tradeoff vs ask_pipeworx. For a complex grounded-answer tool this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the 'question' parameter and all its aliases. The description adds useful context about routing and argument filling, but does not need to explain parameter syntax or semantics further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies a specific mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode') for a specific resource (Pipeworx) and clearly distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx by its grounding behavior. An agent can tell this tool apart from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta without opening 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when to prefer the alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), including the cost tradeoff. This gives clear decision criteria with no ambiguity.

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