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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds real operational context beyond them: the exact success and refusal payload shapes, the five refusal reasons, and the cost tradeoff ('one extra LLM call'). This is disclosure an agent needs to reason about reliability and latency.

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-loads the core distinction ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode') and covers mechanism, return shape, refusal behavior, and routing in one dense paragraph with no filler. Slightly long for a single block, but every sentence carries load-bearing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so completely: field list, refusal reasons, and failure semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret both success and refusal outcomes.

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 single logical parameter plus its five aliases are fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 precise mechanism ('EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains') plus the routing behavior, and explicitly contrasts itself with ask_pipeworx, so the agent can separate the two siblings without opening schemas.

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... must not invent facts') with concrete examples, and names the alternative plus its selection condition ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). 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.