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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses detailed behavior: returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine over 500-char windows, and caps at 200K chars with truncation flagging. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate output and limitations.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: definition, usage rationale, and technical specifics. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple schema, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (passages with offsets and scores), the algorithm, and the truncation behavior. This is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively. The pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded adds workflow context.

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 explains each parameter. The description adds marginal context (e.g., 'Pass the text you already pulled' for text) but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It specifies the verb (search), the resource (record/text), and the output (passages with offsets and similarity scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by emphasizing 'inside a fetched record' and how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context...' It also mentions a complementary tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded) for an alternative workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, the context is clear and useful.

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