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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the extra LLM call cost, the strict extraction-from-tool-result constraint, the exact success/refusal output shapes, and specific refusal reasons. Annotations already indicate readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description complements rather than repeats them.

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: purpose, behavior, output contract, usage guidance, and cost tradeoff. It is front-loaded with the core differentiator, though the long refusal-reason enumeration makes it slightly heavier than strictly necessary.

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 fully specifies success and refusal return shapes, lists refusal reasons, explains the routing behavior, and states when to choose this tool over its sibling. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single natural-language question parameter and its aliases. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond stating that the question is asked in natural language, which the schema already conveys. 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 identifies the verb and resource: it is a grounded, hallucination-resistant answer mode for Pipeworx. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing evidence extraction and refusal behavior, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 guidance (high-stakes reads, quoted/cited/acted-on answers, financial/legal/medical contexts) and names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) with the condition to prefer it for casual lookups. This is strong routing direction.

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