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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral disclosure: it fetches data through routing, extracts the answer using only the tool result, and returns a structured refusal object with specific refusal reasons. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 clause earns its place: it states the mode, explains the routing and extraction behavior, lists the return contract, names refusal reasons, gives concrete use cases, and includes a cost tradeoff with the sibling. Key information is front-loaded with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode...' leading the sentence.

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 documents the return shape, including success fields and refusal reasons, plus error classes. It also provides enough context about cost, routing, and appropriate use cases for an agent to invoke it correctly. Nothing essential for safe, correct selection or invocation 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%, and the schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description reinforces that the input is a natural-language question but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pairing: it is a grounded, hallucination-resistant answer mode for ask_pipeworx. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by explicitly labeling itself as the grounded variant and by describing its extract-from-fetched-data behavior. The scope is clear: return a supported answer or an explicit refusal.

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 it when an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, such as financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, or public statements. It also gives a when-not-to-use directive, saying to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups because grounded mode costs an extra LLM call. This is strong routing guidance relative to its sibling tools.

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