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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: the two-stage fetch-then-extract mechanism, the exact success payload, the enumerated refusal reasons, and the extra-LLM-call cost. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information — mechanism, return shape, selection criteria, cost. It is a single dense paragraph rather than cleanly separated sentences, which slightly hinders scanning, but there is essentially no 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?

For a complex routed-tool wrapper with no output schema, the description compensates by fully specifying both the success object {answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason} and every refusal_reason value. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response or handle failure is missing.

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% and every alias (q, ask, text, input, query, prompt, message) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond 'Your question in natural language,' so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and mode ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and immediately contrasts it with its closest sibling: 'Same routing as ask_pipeworx ... then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains.' An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on ... financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements') and when-not ('Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), naming the alternative and the cost tradeoff that selects it.

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