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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it extracts answers only from tool results (no invention), returns evidence as a verbatim quote, and provides explicit refusal reasons. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the tool's safe, non-fabricating behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: mechanism, return format, usage scenarios, and cost comparison. It is informative without being verbose, and the flow is logical.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a grounded variant with refusal handling), the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, what it returns (including refusal reasons), and how it differs from siblings. It also provides enough context for an agent to decide without needing additional documentation.

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 covers all 6 parameters (100%) with descriptions. The main 'question' parameter description states it accepts aliases (query, q, prompt, text, input), which adds useful semantic context. The tool-level description also clarifies the type of questions (high-stakes, factual) indirectly, but parameter descriptions themselves are minimal beyond alias identification.

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 states it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains the mechanism: routes to a tool, fetches data, and extracts answer only from tool results. It also explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx for casual use, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Also mentions the extra LLM cost trade-off, so when to use this vs alternative is fully specified.

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