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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: exact success return shape, the explicit refusal contract with enumerated refusal_reason values, refusal-triggering conditions, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose and safety contract are front-loaded, the return contracts are compactly summarized, and the cost/alternative guidance closes the description. Every clause earns its place.

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 present, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does so explicitly for both the success shape and the failure/refusal shape. It also covers when a refusal occurs, addresses the cost consideration, and names sibling tools that would be alternatives. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 reported at 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters, and the visible question parameter has a rich description including aliases. The tool description itself doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning that the tool 'fills arguments' internally, which is routing behavior rather than parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific purpose: hallucination-resistant, grounded answer extraction for high-stakes reads. It gives a precise mechanism — picks the right tool from 5,908 tools, fetches data, then extracts an answer using ONLY the tool result — and distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by name, making sibling differentiation explicit.

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 says when to use it ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts'), names the alternative (ask_pipeworx), and gives the exclusion condition ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') plus a concrete cost tradeoff ('Costs one extra LLM call'). Nothing is left to inference.

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