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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: the output shape with evidence and confidence, the refusal protocol with exact refusal_reason values, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with 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 delivers distinct operational value: the mode, routing mechanism, extraction guarantee, return format, refusal format, use cases, and cost tradeoff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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 though there is no output schema, the description fully documents both success and refusal return shapes, the routing behavior, and when to prefer the alternative tool. For a read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, including question and its five aliases. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the routing behavior, so the schema itself carries the parameter documentation burden. 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 a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains that it routes like ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from tool results. It explicitly distinguishes this grounded mode from the casual ask_pipeworx variant, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' with concrete examples like financial verdicts and legal claims. It also names the alternative explicitly: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.'

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