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

This goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool extracts only from tool results, returns verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, and a refusal_reason on failure, and enumerates the exact refusal reason values. The readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations are consistent with the described non-destructive, read-only, refusal-aware behavior.

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 packed but well-organized: mode, routing mechanics, return contract, refusal contract, usage guidance, and cost tradeoff. Each sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must document the return behavior, and it does comprehensively: success shape with evidence and confidence, plus explicit refusal reasons. Combined with its routing explanation and usage guidance, the tool is fully specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and all six parameters are aliases of the same natural-language question. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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, and it differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by grounding answers strictly in tool results. The verb and resource are both clear: it answers a question, routed through Pipeworx tools, with a grounded evidence extraction step.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and facts must not be invented, with concrete domains like financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, and public statements. It also explicitly directs users to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, with the cost tradeoff stated.

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