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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: the exact success return shape, the full refusal_reason enum, the guarantee that answers are extracted only from tool results, and the explicit refusal behavior when data doesn't answer. This is exactly the kind of context the annotation hints cannot convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, routing behavior, return contract, refusal cases, usage guidance, and cost comparison. The key differentiating trait ('EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains') is front-loaded, and the high-stakes use cases are listed economically without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete call contract: success fields, refusal fields, failure semantics, and the deciding factor versus a cheaper sibling. The aliases are fully handled by the input schema, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in a grounded-answer scenario.

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%: the single required parameter is described as 'Your question in natural language' and all five aliases are explicitly documented. The tool description adds no further parameter-level semantics because context signals confirm the schema already covers this fully. Baseline 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 phrase — 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode' — and clearly states the resource and behavior: it routes, fetches, and extracts an answer only from tool results. It also distinguishes itself from the close sibling ask_pipeworx by name and by the grounded-evidence guarantee, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts,' with concrete high-stakes examples. It also states when not to use it: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups,' and names the exact alternative and the cost trade-off.

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