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

Annotations already mark this readOnly and idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact success return shape, the refusal contract with enumerated refusal_reason values, and the extra LLM call cost. It also makes the anti-hallucination behavior explicit by stating extraction uses 'ONLY what the tool result contains'.

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 first, then routing behavior, then exact output/refusal shapes, then use cases, then cost tradeoff. The structured return formats are packed efficiently and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by specifying both the success object and refusal object with exact keys and refusal reason enum values. It also covers cost, safety profile, and when to prefer the sibling, making it self-sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 is fully self-documenting: all six parameters are documented aliases of 'question', with the required question parameter described as natural language. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies this as a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains the core behavior: route like ask_pipeworx, fetch data, then extract the answer using only the tool result. It explicitly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx, 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 lists example domains. It also provides the counter-routing rule: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups', which is concrete and actionable.

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