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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it returns an explicit refusal structure with enumerated refusal_reason values, guarantees evidence as a verbatim quote, and promises no answer invention. 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the mode, the second details the return and refusal contract, the third covers use cases and the cost tradeoff. The refusal_reason enum is delivered as structured inline JSON rather than prose, keeping it dense and skimmable. The key differentiator is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully describes the success response fields and the refusal response variants. It also covers when to use the tool, when to prefer the sibling, and the extra cost. Given the simple single-question parameter and rich annotations, nothing essential 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% — all parameters are aliases for 'question' and are described. The description adds no additional parametric meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' immediately stating a specific verb, resource, and mode. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction ('using ONLY what the tool result contains') and explicit refusal behavior, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also gives a cost-based tradeoff ('Costs one extra LLM call'). This is exemplary when/when-not guidance.

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