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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior beyond those: the explicit refusal protocol with enumerated refusal_reason values, the verbatim-evidence extraction guarantee, the success return shape, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with annotations — the read-only fetch/extract behavior is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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 with the core purpose, then flows logically through mechanism, return shapes, refusal behavior, use-when conditions, and cost comparison. Dense and information-rich; every sentence earns its place, though the description is on the longer side and could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it documents the full success return shape, all five refusal_reason enum values, the use conditions, and the cost tradeoff against ask_pipeworx. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret both success and failure responses.

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 schema already documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description adds general context — that the question is routed across tools and fills arguments — but no parameter-specific syntax, format, or length guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific purpose — 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' — with a clear verb (answer/extract) and resource (tool results from 5,908 tools across 1540 sources). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by its grounded, evidence-extraction behavior and refusal protocol, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the 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 specifies when to use this tool: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts,' with concrete domains (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). It also names the alternative and the condition for choosing it: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' with the cost tradeoff stated. Nothing is left to inference.

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