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

The description discloses implementation details beyond the annotations: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, and a 200K char cap with truncation flagging. It also clarifies the return of character offsets and similarity scores, enriching the read-only/idempotent annotation context.

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 dense but well-organized: it opens with the core function, then adds use-case guidance, and finally gives technical details. No wasted words, though the final sentence could be split for readability. It is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

The description fully covers inputs, outputs, use cases, alternatives, and limitations. It specifies return content (passages, offsets, similarity scores), the 200K character cap and truncation behavior, and the relationship to ask_pipeworx_grounded. Despite no output schema, the description compensates effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds illustrative examples for the text parameter ('SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result') and query examples, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already says about limit or defaults. It reinforces but does not significantly expand parameter semantics.

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 fetched record,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with ask_pipeworx_grounded and specifying the input is a previously fetched text, not a database-wide search.

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 a direct pairing strategy with ask_pipeworx_grounded. It explains the workflow (fetch with gateway, then ground over passages) and the benefit (saves context, verifiable quotes).

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