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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. Beyond that, it discloses substantial behavioral detail: extraction is limited to tool result content, success returns a structured payload with verbatim evidence, and failures produce explicit refusal reasons such as 'not_in_source' and 'data_truncated.' This is far more than annotations alone provide.

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 earns its place: core behavior, routing distinction, output contract, refusal contract, usage guidance, and cost tradeoff. Key differentiators are front-loaded, and the explicit refusal reasons are compactly enumerated.

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 covers return values and error/refusal shapes. It explains the extra LLM call cost, the high-stakes use case, and the internal grounding mechanism. For a single-question-parameter tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents the single real parameter with aliases and a natural-language explanation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the high schema coverage. Baseline 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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It explicitly names the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' and explains that this variant uses the same routing but grounds the answer only in tool results, distinguishing it from the casual version. The resource, behavior, and differentiator are all stated upfront.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts.' It also provides the contrasting rule, 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups,' and names the cost tradeoff. This leaves no ambiguity about selection between the siblings.

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