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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them while adding significant value: exact success return shape, the explicit refusal contract with refusal_reason values, and the behavioral guarantee that it never fabricates beyond the tool result. No contradiction exists between description and 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the mode, details the routing and extraction behavior, specifies the exact return/refusal contract, and closes with cost and usage guidance. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool's behavioral guarantees.

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 compensates by specifying the full success return object and all refusal_reason variants. It also covers cost, routing breadth, and when to prefer the sibling tool, making the description self-sufficient for selection and invocation.

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%, with the schema already documenting 'question' and all aliases as natural-language input. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas; it mentions 'fills arguments' but gives no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode') and a precise mechanism: it extracts the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains, then returns answer/evidence/refusal. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by explaining that it adds grounded extraction on top of the same routing.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements'), when-not-to-use guidance ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), and the cost tradeoff ('Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx'). This fully equips an agent to choose between the grounded and non-grounded variants.

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