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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing the full success return contract ({answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at}), the five explicit refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, llm_error), the 'uses ONLY what the tool result contains' extraction constraint, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with annotations — the readOnlyHint is consistent with a read-and-answer operation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the flow is logical: purpose, mechanism, return contract, refusal behavior, use cases, cost tradeoff. Every sentence carries information, but the '5,798 across 1517 sources' detail and the full refusal enum make it denser than strictly necessary for routing decisions.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly carries the full burden of documenting return values, and it does so exhaustively for both the success and refusal paths. Combined with the usage guidance and cost note, nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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%: the schema fully documents the single 'question' parameter and all five aliases (query, q, prompt, text, input). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' naming a specific mode (grounded answering), an explicit verb (extracts the answer), and the routing resource (5,798 tools across 1517 sources). It also distinguishes itself from its closest sibling, ask_pipeworx, by the grounded-extraction behavior and refusal mechanism, so an agent can tell them apart 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 explicit when-to-use guidance — 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' with concrete examples (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups) — and explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' The alternative is named and the selecting condition is unambiguous.

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