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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the extra LLM call cost, the exact success payload, and an enumerated set of refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, llm_error) that tell the agent precisely how failure surfaces.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then behavior, then usage, then cost tradeoff — every clause carries information an agent needs, especially the return/refusal contract given there is no output schema. Slightly dense and em-dash-heavy, which costs it the top mark.

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 fully compensates by specifying the success payload and the refusal payload. Combined with present annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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%, so the question parameter and its five aliases are fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and explains how it differs from the sibling: same routing/orchestration as ask_pipeworx, but extraction is constrained to the fetched tool result. An agent can distinguish this from ask_pipeworx without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts') with concrete examples (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups), and names the alternative and its condition ('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.