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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive); the description adds substantial context beyond them: extraction constrained to tool output only, the exact success payload shape, five enumerated refusal reasons with the literal refusal_reason values, and the extra-LLM-call cost. This is unusually rich disclosure of behavior the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the differentiator ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode') before mechanism, return shape, and the cost caveat. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by specifying the success object fields and every refusal case, so an agent knows both what it gets back and how failure manifests. Combined with the routing explanation and cost note, nothing material 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 all aliases plus prefer_tool are already documented in the schema, so the description adds little parameter-level syntax. It only reinforces routing/argument-filling behavior, which is also stated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (extract an answer) and resource (routed tool data), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ask_pipeworx ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx ... then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains'). An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on'), concrete trigger domains (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements), and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), plus the cost tradeoff ('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.