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

Even with readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it discloses the exact success and refusal response shapes, enumerates refusal reasons, and states that the answer is extracted strictly from the tool result. This goes well beyond annotations and gives the agent accurate expectations for failure modes.

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: first defines the mode, then the mechanism, then the structured contract, then when to use it, then the cost tradeoff. The highest-stakes usage guidance appears early and there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully compensates by stating the return object fields, the success/refusal dichotomy, concrete refusal reason values, the cost consideration, and the use-case boundary. Together with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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%; the schema already documents 'question' and all five aliases, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. The description does not add semantic value about how to phrase the question or when to use each alias, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 names a specific mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode'), states exactly what it does (routes, fetches, then extracts only from tool result), and highlights the key contrast with ask_pipeworx. This is more than a generic verb+resource; it is a precise functional identity with clear differentiation from the closest sibling.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts.' It also gives a direct exclusion: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' and quantifies the cost tradeoff, which gives the agent a concrete decision rule.

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