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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing exact success and refusal payloads, refusal reason enums, and the constraint that answers come only from tool results. It also warns about the extra LLM call cost, which is valuable behavioral context not present in readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 structure, refusal behavior, use cases, and cost tradeoff. The most important distinction ('hallucination-resistant') is front-loaded, and the comparison to ask_pipeworx is placed at the end as a decision aid.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent can expect: success fields, evidence quoting, refusal reasons, and a clear decision rule versus its sibling. Nothing essential for safe and correct 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?

The schema already covers the single question parameter and all aliases at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the question is routed to select from 5,767 tools and fill arguments, which tells the agent that the query is an open-ended natural-language request handled by an orchestration layer.

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 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' immediately stating a specific purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by explaining that it routes the same way but extracts answers using only tool results.

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 to use this tool 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and lists high-stakes domains like financial verdicts and legal claims. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups,' making the alternative selection unambiguous.

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