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

Beyond the annotation hints (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses technical behavior: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K char truncation cap with a flag, and return of offsets for quote verification. These non-obvious details are valuable for an agent deciding to use the tool.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core function/usage, pairing with another tool, and technical constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy or fluff.

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 takes responsibility for explaining return values, and it does say 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores' and mentions a truncation flag. However, it does not specify the exact output structure (e.g., field names), so the agent would need to infer the precise response format; this small gap prevents a 5.

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 describes all three parameters with clear explanations (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual flavor (e.g., text is an already-pulled record) but does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool performs semantic search inside a provided text, returning top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. It is explicitly contrasted with siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded, making the tool's specific 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for a grounded-answer workflow. This gives clear context and an alternative, fulfilling the when-to-use and when-not-to-use requirement.

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