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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the full success return shape, the explicit refusal contract with its five refusal_reason enum values, the guarantee that answers are extracted only from tool results, and the cost tradeoff. Since there is no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of documenting the return contract. No 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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism, return contract, refusal contract, usage rule, and cost tradeoff. The absence of an output schema justifies the length, though it is a single packed paragraph that could be lightly restructured; minor deduction only.

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?

Complete for a tool with no output schema: the return shape and refusal reasons are spelled out, the routing mechanism is explained, the decision boundary against ask_pipeworx is explicit, and the single parameter is self-explanatory via the schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its response.

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% — all six parameters are documented aliases of the single 'question' parameter, and the schema itself explains that query, q, prompt, text, and input are accepted. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema fully carries the load.

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' that extracts answers using ONLY tool-result content. Explicitly contrasts with sibling ask_pipeworx ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx') while differentiating the grounded extraction behavior, so an agent can distinguish them 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts') with concrete high-stakes domains. Also states the when-not-to-use case and names the alternative: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups,' including the cost reason (one extra LLM call). No inference required.

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