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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses exact success output fields (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at) and failure modes with refusal_reason enum values. It also explicitly states the anti-hallucination constraint, which is critical behavioral information.

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 well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then layering output/refusal behavior and usage guidance. It is slightly long due to enumerating refusal reasons and aliases, but every sentence contributes.

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 specifying the success and refusal response shapes, evidence quoting, refusal reasons, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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% and parameter descriptions already define the 'question' parameter and all aliases. The description does not add meaningful information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly identifies it as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, with specific verbs ('EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains') and resource (Pipeworx). It explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx, distinguishing the grounded variant from the 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements') and when-not-to-use ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), plus cost tradeoff. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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