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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive traits, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns either {answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} or an explicit refusal with specific refusal_reason values. It also discloses the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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, behavior, return contract, refusal reasons, use cases, and cost comparison. It is front-loaded with the central distinguishing feature ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode') before details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 fully covers the success and failure return shapes, including the refusal reason enum. It also addresses routing behavior, the alternative tool, and cost implications, making the tool callable correctly without additional inference.

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 already documents all parameters, including the question aliases. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' that routes to the appropriate tool, fetches data, and extracts an answer using only tool results. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the grounded/refusal behavior, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting 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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' with concrete examples. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and instructs to prefer it for casual lookups, clearly defining the tradeoff between groundedness and cost.

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