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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds rich behavioral context beyond that: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K character cap with truncation and flagging, and return details (offsets, similarity scores). 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?

Although lengthy, every sentence contributes value: the core function, use case, return format, pairing guidance, and technical limits. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids fluff, earning its length.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints, algorithm, truncation behavior, and return format (character offsets and similarity scores). It also provides integration context with ask_pipeworx_grounded, making it highly complete for its complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the query parameter with examples (e.g., 'supply-chain risk') and clarifies the text is 'already pulled,' but it largely echoes the schema. It doesn't provide significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and clearly identifies the resource (the text parameter). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and noting the use case of reducing context load.

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 guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded. This distinguishes when to use search_within versus alternatives, satisfying the when-to-use requirement.

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