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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description complements this by disclosing that it refuses rather than fabricates answers, enumerating refusal reasons, and showing the exact success and refusal response shapes. It also reveals the extra LLM call cost, which is valuable operational context not captured in 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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism, response contract, refusal contract, usage guidance, and cost tradeoff. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition and structured so the most important routing information appears early.

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 fully specifies the return contract including both success and refusal payloads with refusal reason enum values. It also covers when to use, when to avoid, cost implications, and the grounding behavior, making the tool complete for an agent to invoke 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%, with the 'question' parameter already well documented including natural language and aliases. The description reinforces that the input is a question but does not add meaningful parametric detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer mode for high-stakes reads, and distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing that answers are extracted only from tool results. It names the verb 'answer' with a specific resource and behavior, so an agent can immediately understand its role.

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 ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), includes concrete example domains, and names the alternative tool. This gives direct routing guidance with no inference required.

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