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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantive behavior beyond this: it guarantees extraction only from the tool result, enumerates specific refusal_reason values, and discloses the extra-LLM-call cost. This fully captures what the tool will and won't do.

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 carries distinct information: safety guarantee, routing mechanism, return contract, refusal semantics, use cases, and tradeoff versus the sibling. It is front-loaded with the most important behavioral qualifier and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract ({answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason}) and the refusal variants. Together with the annotations and sibling context, an agent has everything it needs to decide when to call this tool, what to expect, and how it differs from ask_pipeworx.

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%, with all parameters documented as aliases for a single natural-language question. The description does not need to add much, and it doesn't; it simply reinforces that the tool takes a question. This meets the baseline for fully covered schemas but adds no new parameter-level detail.

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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by explicitly saying it uses the same routing but then extracts answers only from the tool result, and it documents the exact success/refusal return shapes.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' It also names the alternative tool and the cost tradeoff (one extra LLM call), which is exactly the kind of routing clarity an agent needs.

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