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

The description discloses substantial behavioral details beyond the annotations: it describes the embedding model (BGE-base-en), the windowing strategy (500-char overlapping windows), the return format (character offsets and similarity scores), and the 200K character cap with truncation flagged. This goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints and gives the agent a clear model of what will happen.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core action, the second gives usage rationale, the third connects to a sibling tool, and the fourth provides technical constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words.

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 must explain what the tool returns, and it does: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' It also covers limits (200K char cap, truncation flag) and parameter expectations. For a 3-parameter tool, this is a complete and self-contained description.

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 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for the 'text' parameter ('e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result') and framing it as 'text you already pulled.' It also adds the truncation nuance for the text parameter. This is more than baseline but not a complete overhaul, hence a 4.

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 itself from siblings by explaining it operates on text already pulled, and it explicitly pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for a different workflow. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also names an alternative workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded, showing how this tool fits into a larger pipeline. This provides clear when-to-use and context for alternatives, though it doesn't state explicit exclusions, it implies them (small records should just be put in the prompt).

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