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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses exact success and refusal response structures, refusal reason enums, evidence extraction from verbatim quotes, and the extra LLM call cost. No behavioral 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?

Dense but well-organized: purpose first, then mechanics, then return shape, then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes either behavioral or routing information with 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?

Despite missing an output schema, the description fully documents both success and refusal outputs, source/behavior, cost tradeoff, and appropriate contexts. The routing reference to ask_pipeworx plus the refusal enum makes the definition complete for correct invocation.

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% and the schema already describes 'question' with aliases, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a concrete purpose: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explicitly contrasts with 'Same routing as ask_pipeworx' while naming the grounded/evidence behavior. This clearly differentiates it from the ask_pipeworx sibling.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...') and an explicit alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') with cost-based rationale. This is strong routing guidance.

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