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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses the refusal mechanism with specific reason codes, the return shape with evidence, and the extra LLM call cost. This adds significant behavioral context not inferable from structured fields.

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 core purpose and differentiator, then efficiently structured into success/refusal shapes and usage guidance. Every sentence carries distinct value, though the length is at the high end for a tool description – still well-organized and scannable.

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?

Covers return format, refusal reasons, routing behavior, and cost tradeoff in a self-contained way. With no output schema, the description fully explains expected results. It also names the sibling for comparison, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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%, with each alias documented and the canonical 'question' described as natural language accepting aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already fully covers semantics, so 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 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' – a specific verb (answer) and resource (Pipeworx) with a clear differentiator from siblings. It explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx and names the beta sibling, so an agent can immediately distinguish them.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when-not-to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It names the alternative and the cost tradeoff, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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