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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by disclosing technical details such as BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K char cap, and truncation flagging. It also explains the return format (offsets and scores). This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations with no contradictions.

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 four sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, use cases, integration with another tool, and technical constraints. There is no fluff or repetition, and the structure flows logically from definition to guidance to implementation details.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the agent can expect: top-N passages, character offsets, and similarity scores. It also covers input limits and truncation behavior. However, it does not specify the exact JSON structure of the returned passages (e.g., field names), which would be useful for an agent consuming the result. This minor gap prevents a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already documents each parameter (text, query, limit) with clear descriptions and examples. The tool description adds contextual framing ("text you already pulled") and return behavior, but it does not significantly enhance per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, a 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 a specific verb and resource: "Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record." It clearly explains the input (text already pulled) and output (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It also differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing the targeted search within a record and its pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: "Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt." It also provides context with examples (SEC 10-K, article, long tool result) and recommends a workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded, including a clear integration pattern. This is strong usage guidance beyond a vague rule.

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