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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/not destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the exact success return shape, the five explicit refusal reasons, that only the tool result is used, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradictions 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core value, routing behavior, return contract, refusal contract, use cases, and cost tradeoff. It is front-loaded with the key differentiator and avoids 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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the success and refusal return shapes. It also covers the alternative, cost implication, and appropriate contexts, so an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the question parameter and all aliases. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the question is natural language; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise purpose: a hallucination-resistant answer mode that routes like ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from the fetched tool result. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta by emphasizing grounded, evidence-backed answers.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and facts must not be invented, with examples such as financial verdicts and legal claims. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and tells the agent to prefer it for casual lookups, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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