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

Discloses detailed behavior beyond annotations: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation and flagging, and return of character offsets and similarity scores. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does internally.

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 front-loaded with an immediate, clear purpose and every sentence provides distinct value—usage condition, pairing with a sibling, return format, and technical processing details. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what is returned (top-N passages, character offsets, similarity scores), the input constraints (200K char cap), processing behavior (overlapping windows), and how it relates to a grounded workflow. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual examples (SEC 10-K body, article, long tool result) and clarifies 'text you already pulled,' adding helpful meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description opens with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and clearly identifies the resource (a fetched text) and action (semantic search). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx_grounded by describing the scoped, passage-level search vs. whole-document grounding.

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 an explicit use condition: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also names a pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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