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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations by explaining the extraction constraint, the exact success and refusal response shapes, and the extra LLM call cost. The description is fully consistent with the annotations and adds substantial behavioral detail without contradiction.

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 efficient, with the core value proposition front-loaded. Some length is justified by the unusually rich behavioral and routing context, and every section earns its place.

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 read-only grounded answering tool with no output schema, the description covers usage, output structure, refusal reasons, cost trade-offs, and alternative selection. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and to interpret its result.

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 the schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 purpose: a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. It clearly identifies the resource and behavior, and distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing extraction solely from tool results.

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 says when to use the tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented. It also names ask_pipeworx as the lighter alternative and instructs to prefer it for casual lookups, giving a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use pairing.

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