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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the refusal contract with exact refusal_reason values, the evidence extraction guarantee using verbatim quotes, and the 'one extra LLM call' cost. No contradiction with 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: routing, grounding behavior, return shape, refusal reasons, use cases, and cost tradeoff. It is slightly long and not broken into paragraphs, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the success return object, the refusal object with enumerated reasons, use-case constraints, and the sibling relationship. For an agent deciding between ask_pipeworx variants, nothing essential 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%, with all six properties documented as aliases for 'question.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema fully explains the singular input, so a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads', and explains it routes like ask_pipeworx but then 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx by its grounded, evidence-based behavior.

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts', and when not to: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' It also names the alternative and explains the extra cost tradeoff, leaving no doubt about selection.

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