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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial implementation details beyond those: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K character cap with truncation flagging, and the inclusion of character offsets for verification. This gives the agent valuable non-obvious context about performance and edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into usage guidance, pairing, and technical details. Every sentence carries useful information, but the technical details about embeddings and window sizes are somewhat dense and could be separated for easier scanning. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return format, which it does ('passages with character offsets and similarity scores'). It also covers truncation behavior, the intended use case (large documents), and the complementary sibling tool. The description is self-contained and provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the top-N concept and provides query examples, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It clearly identifies the input (text already pulled) and output (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), and it distinguishes the tool from the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining the complementary workflow.

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 it: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also mentions the paired sibling (ask_pipeworx_grounded) and how search_within fits into that workflow. However, it doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use cases or list alternative tools beyond the one named sibling, so it falls just short of a perfect 5.

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