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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: refusal reasons, evidence extraction, confidence and source fields, and the 'no invention' guarantee. It fully discloses what happens when data doesn't directly answer, going well beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output/refusal behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, behavior, return format, use cases, and cost trade-off. It is dense but not bloated, and no sentence is redundant.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the success return structure and all refusal_reason enumerations. It also explains the routing mechanism, use context, and cost implications, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including aliases and a detailed description for the single required parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The agent can resolve parameters entirely from the schema.

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 defines a specific answer mode: it routes like ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from tool output, explicitly contrasting with the sibling. It names the exact behavior, resource (answer generation), and distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and other siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on'), when not to use it, and which alternative to prefer ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also mentions the cost trade-off, covering both selection and avoidance criteria.

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