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

Annotations already mark readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: exact success and refusal response shapes, enumerated refusal reasons, the verbatim-evidence requirement, and the extra LLM call cost. 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?

Dense but not bloated: every sentence contributes purpose, usage, behavior, return shape, or trade-off. The most important differentiator is front-loaded, and the cost comparison is placed last as a natural closing decision hint.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description defines both success and failure shapes, lists refusal reasons, states when to use it, and quantifies the cost trade-off. Combined with the annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema fully documents the single question parameter and its aliases. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline applies because the schema carries the burden. The description's mention of 'fills arguments' is context, not parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a hallucination-resistant 'answer mode' that extracts answers only from tool results. It clearly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by naming the sibling and the key difference in behavior. The resource and scope are 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?

Explicitly says when to use: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and lists high-stakes domains. It also says prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, giving a concrete exclusion condition and alternative.

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