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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral detail beyond that: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K char cap with truncation flagging, and offset/similarity score returns. This transparently discloses implementation details and limitations 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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, examples, use-case, pairing, and technical constraints are condensed into a few dense sentences. The description is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff, making it easy to parse for an agent.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description states the return format (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and notes the truncation flag. Combined with rich parameter descriptions and annotations, this makes the tool's behavior fully transparent for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 value by clarifying the `text` parameter as 'the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result)' and reveals that longer inputs are truncated and flagged—context not present in the schema. This extra operational guidance justifies a 4.

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,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded. It explicitly lists inputs (text, query) and outputs (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains the alternative/complement 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives a clear when-to-use and how-to-integrate with siblings, satisfying the dimension fully.

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