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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds significant context beyond them: it discloses that only tool-result content is used, describes the exact success and refusal return shapes, lists refusal reasons, and notes the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with annotations found.

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, output shape, refusal semantics, usage guidance, and cost tradeoff are all covered without fluff. Key differentiators are front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates well by fully specifying the return value shape and refusal reasons. It also explains when to prefer this over its sibling, covers cost implications, and provides enough context for correct invocation and interpretation of 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given high coverage, but it also doesn't need to; the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode') and clearly differentiates from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing extraction only from the tool result. It also explicitly names the sibling it relates to and the key distinction, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when-not-to-use guidance ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also explains the cost tradeoff, which helps an agent make an informed routing decision.

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