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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond by disclosing internal behavior (routing over 6,475 tools/1685 sources), the extra LLM call cost, and the exact success and refusal response shapes. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the differentiator ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') before the routing, return contract, and selection guidance. Every clause carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the return-contract burden and does so explicitly, enumerating success fields and all five refusal_reason values. Combined with the cost note and selection guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 all 8 params are documented aliases for the single required 'question' field, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no field-level syntax or format detail, which is the correct baseline-3 case when the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('grounded answer mode', 'extracts the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling ask_pipeworx ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx'). An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta from the description alone.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use criteria ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') with concrete domains, plus an explicit when-not ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') and the cost tradeoff that drives the choice. Nothing is left to inference.

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