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

Discloses truncation at 200K chars with flag, embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing (500-char overlapping, cosine), and return format (passages with offsets+similarity). Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent operation; description adds rich behavioral detail without contradiction.

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?

Two dense sentences: first states purpose and usage, second adds technical constraints and output details. No redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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?

Fully explains input limits (200K chars), output (passages with offsets/scores), embedding model, and pairing with sibling tool. No output schema but returns are clearly described. Complete for a search tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions; description adds practical context (e.g., text source examples, query examples, default limit) that helps an agent formulate inputs correctly.

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?

Clearly states semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples (SEC 10-K, article, tool result) and distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining the pairing pattern.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (record too big for prompt, save context) and pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding; provides clear alternative to cramming entire document.

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