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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that it routes across 5,714 tools, fetches data, and extracts answers strictly from the tool result, with a structured refusal response when the data doesn't directly answer. It even enumerates refusal_reason values, providing full transparency about failure modes.

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 efficient, front-loading the core value proposition, then covering behavior, return shape, use cases, and cost tradeoff in a compact form. Every sentence earns its place, and the alternative is explicitly named.

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?

For a high-stakes answer tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact success response fields and all refusal reasons. It covers routing, extraction constraints, when to use, and cost impact, making the tool self-contained and actionable for an agent.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, including the description 'Your question in natural language' and the alias list. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information because the schema is complete; per calibration, 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 clearly states the tool is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explicitly differentiates it from its sibling ask_pipeworx by naming the same routing plus the extra extraction step. The verb and resource are specific, and the return/refusal contract is defined.

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 guidance on when to use it ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), including the cost tradeoff of one extra LLM call. It points to the alternative tool by name, leaving 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.