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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond these by disclosing technical behavior: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-character overlapping windows, a 200K character cap, and that longer inputs are truncated and flagged. It also reveals output components (character offsets, similarity scores), providing a complete behavioral picture.

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 well-structured and efficient, starting with an action-oriented purpose, then usage context, a pairing note, and technical specifics. No sentence is wasted; even the technical details (embeddings, windows, cap) serve to set expectations. It is dense but not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves technically, what it returns, and its limitations. It even explains the truncation behavior. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including an example for 'query'. The description reinforces this by referencing 'the text you already pulled' and the 200K cap, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record." It clearly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with ask_pipeworx_grounded and noting that this tool searches within already-pulled text rather than querying a source directly. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately obvious.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: "Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt." It also explains the relationship with a sibling tool: "Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document." This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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