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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the bar is lower for additional behavioral disclosure. The description goes beyond by revealing implementation details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K character cap with truncation flagging, and that results include offsets for verification. All of this adds significant transparency without contradicting 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 four sentences, each earning its place: it states the core function, provides the primary use case, suggests a pairing with a sibling tool, and discloses technical constraints. It's front-loaded with the key 'inside a fetched record' scope and remains focused without verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' It also covers edge cases (longer inputs truncated and flagged) and the max input size. Given the tool's moderate complexity and strong annotations, the description fully equips an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic richness (e.g., what kind of text to pass, examples of queries), but it largely restates what the schema already provides. It doesn't introduce new parameter-level information that changes how to use them.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by emphasizing that it operates on already-fetched text rather than a broader knowledge base, and it clarifies the output (top-N passages with offsets and scores). This makes the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and how it saves context. It also provides an alternative and complementary workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This is clear, actionable guidance.

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