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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the refusal mechanism, exact refusal_reason values, the evidence format, the extra LLM call cost, and the hard constraint that answers come only from the tool result. No annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, behavior, return shape, refusal reasons, usage guidance, and cost trade-off. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and does not waste words, though the length is on the higher side for maximal scanning efficiency.

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 fully compensates by specifying the success return shape, the refusal shape, the potential refusal_reason values, and the conditions for choosing this tool over its sibling. An agent has everything needed to invoke it appropriately and interpret its results.

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%, with the question parameter and its aliases fully documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond stating that routing fills arguments, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies this as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, with a specific extraction behavior distinct from ask_pipeworx. It names the resource and the underlying routing mechanism, so an agent can tell what the tool does without confusion.

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 states when to use the tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on'), gives concrete example domains, and directly compares to ask_pipeworx with a preference for casual lookups. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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