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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), yet the description adds substantial context: internal routing over 6,767 tools, extraction limited to the tool result, exact return shape, enumerated refusal reasons, and a cost tradeoff (one extra LLM call). This is well beyond what structured fields 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?

Front-loads the core value proposition ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode') then layers routing, return contract, refusals, and routing guidance. Dense but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 supplies the full return contract including success shape, evidence field, and enumerated refusal reasons. For a high-stakes grounding tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% and the required/alias structure is fully documented in the schema ('Accepts query, q, prompt... as aliases'). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or formatting detail, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('hallucination-resistant answer mode', 'EXTRACTS the answer') and explicitly anchors it against the sibling ask_pipeworx by describing identical routing but grounded extraction. An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on'), concrete domains (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups), and an explicit when-not with the alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). Nothing left to inference.

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