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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for added context is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral depth: it performs routing across 5,908 tools, extracts only from tool results, returns an explicit refusal with specific refusal_reason enums, and costs one extra LLM call.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, routing behavior, output shape, refusal behavior, use cases, and cost tradeoff are all covered without repetition. The most important scoping information is front-loaded before the cost caveat.

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 having no output schema, the description fully documents both success and refusal return shapes, including field names and refusal_reason values. It also explains the cost tradeoff and gives concrete high-stakes examples, making it complete for a complex routing-and-grounding 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 schema already documents the parameters. The description mentions that routing 'fills arguments' and that the tool 'asks a question in natural language,' but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. 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 verb+resource: a grounded, hallucination-resistant answer mode that extracts answers only from tool results. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by its refusal behavior and high-stakes suitability, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: anytime an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and when facts must not be invented (financial, legal, medical, public statements). It also names the alternative, ask_pipeworx, and states to prefer it for casual lookups due to the extra LLM call cost.

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