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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses that the tool may return an explicit refusal with a refusal_reason when data does not directly answer, that evidence is restricted to verbatim quotes from the tool result, and that it adds an extra LLM call. These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in the annotations.

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: purpose, routing behavior, return/refusal contract, when-to-use, and cost trade-off with the sibling. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact and then flows logically into invocation guidance.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description defines the success return shape and all refusal_reason enum values, and it supplies routing and cost context. Combined with readOnly/idempotent annotations and a fully documented single question parameter, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 all parameters as documented aliases for question, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format guidance, leaving the baseline of 3 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 specific purpose—'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads'—and explains it extracts answers using only the tool result, with verbatim evidence. It also distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by adding grounded extraction and explicit refusals, so an agent can tell siblings 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?

It explicitly says to use this mode 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and gives concrete high-stakes domains such as financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, and public statements. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and directs casual lookups there because this mode costs one extra LLM call.

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