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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: returns character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings with 500-char overlapping windows, and enforces a 200K char cap with truncation flagged. This adds substantial context about output structure and limitations, far exceeding annotation coverage.

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 concise yet packed with useful information, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: what it does, when to use it, how it pairs with other tools, and technical constraints. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores). It covers performance characteristics, input limits, and integration with a sibling tool. For a search tool of moderate complexity, this provides a complete picture for an agent to decide and invoke successfully.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new parameter semantics beyond schema, though it reinforces the text cap and gives query examples already present in the schema. It does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding beyond what 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 a specific action: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record', and specifies inputs (text, natural-language query) and outputs (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and contrasting with searching the whole document.

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', and names an alternative flow with ask_pipeworx_grounded. This gives clear context and direct comparison to a sibling tool, demonstrating when this tool is preferred.

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