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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings and cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, and has a 200K character cap with truncation handling. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Though the description is long, every sentence earns its place. It opens with the core behavior, then discusses use cases, return values, and technical constraints. The structure is logical and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant statements.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain the return format, which it does: passes with character offsets and similarity scores. It also covers the key use case, the 200K char limit, truncation behavior, and integration with a sibling tool. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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?

Scheme description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves, but it does frame them nicely: 'Pass the text you already pulled... plus a natural-language query.' This adds a usage context, but for parameter-level semantics, the schema already fully explains each field.

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 identifies the tool as performing semantic search inside a provided text record, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('fetched record'/'text'). It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by saying it searches within a given text, and the title 'Search Within a Source' reinforces the purpose.

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 it: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also provides guidance on how it complements other tools, saying 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document,' which clarifies when this tool is preferable.

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