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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K character cap with truncation flagging, and passage offsets for quote verification. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and no contradiction exists.

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 concise despite its length: four sentences cover purpose, usage trigger, sibling pairing, return format, and algorithmic constraints. It uses bold key phrases and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing return values (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), the 200K character cap, truncation behavior, and the intended workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded. The annotation set covers safety, so no critical behavioral gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description enriches semantics by clarifying that text is 'already pulled,' has a 200K char cap, and that longer inputs are truncated and flagged. It also ties the query to natural-language examples in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' naming the specific verb (search), resource (text within fetched record), and operation (retrieve passages). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with ask_pipeworx_grounded and by emphasizing that it operates on text already supplied, not on retrieval.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: when a record is too big to fit in the prompt, because it returns only relevant passages and saves context. It pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, instructing to fetch with the gateway and ground over relevant passages, giving clear alternative/complementary usage.

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