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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, and idempotent nature. The description adds valuable behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, the 200K char cap with truncation and flagging, and the output structure. These go beyond the annotations and give the agent a precise mental model of tool behavior.

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 long but packs substantial information: core purpose, usage scenario, integration with a sibling, algorithm details, limits, and output. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every sentence earns its place; no filler 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description clearly states the return type: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' It also discloses edge cases (truncation flag), technical limitations, and tool relationships. For a search tool with strong annotations, this description is fully complete.

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 all parameters (text, query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds contextual meaning such as 'top-N passages' for limit and example queries for query, but this is marginal beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a 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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' a specific verb+resource combination. It further distinguishes from siblings by specifying the input is 'text you already pulled' and explicitly calls out the use case for records too big for the prompt, which clearly separates it from tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter.' It also names a complementary workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document,' providing clear when and how to use the tool relative to a sibling.

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