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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: return values include 'character offsets and similarity scores,' enabling verbatim quote verification, and technical specifics like 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).' This goes well beyond the annotations and discloses truncation and windowing behavior, which is valuable for an agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 five sentences and dense, but every sentence serves a distinct purpose: definition, usage, when-to-use, pairing, and technical constraints. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids fluff. It could be slightly trimmed, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity. This earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

This tool lacks an output schema, so the description must explain what the agent will receive. It does: 'get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' It also covers input limits (200K chars with truncation flagging), the embedding/window approach, and when to use the tool. Combined with the annotations, the description covers all operational aspects an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly. It is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'text' parameter as 'the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result),' which adds real-world context, but the schema already contains the same examples. It does not introduce new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The truncation note is behavioral rather than semantic for the 'text' parameter. Thus, 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 opens with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' clearly stating the verb (search) and resource (a fetched record). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and emphasizing it operates over already-retrieved text, not external queries. This is a specific, distinguishing purpose.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also names an alternative workflow, 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document,' which clearly positions it relative to sibling tools. This is exactly the kind of exclusion/contextual guidance expected.

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