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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals significant behavioral details: the embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing strategy (500-char overlapping windows), length cap (200K chars), truncation flagging, and the presence of offsets for verification. This adds substantial context beyond what annotations provide and contradicts nothing.

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 longer than two sentences but remains focused and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, from the use case to the technical details. The degree of implementation detail is slightly more than necessary, but it is efficiently packed and logically ordered.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It covers the input requirement (text and query), the use case context, the pairing with sibling tools, and edge behavior (truncation). This makes the tool's behavior fully transparent for an agent.

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 description adds some context (e.g., text examples like SEC 10-K body, query examples), but these largely mirror the schema descriptions. The description does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: "Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record." It includes concrete outputs (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining its role in a workflow (fetch first, then search inside).

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 says when to use this tool: "Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt." It also names an alternative and pairing: "Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document." This provides both when and alternative guidance.

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