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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral details: return format (character offsets, similarity scores), underlying algorithm (BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine over 500-char windows), and input limits with truncation behavior. This gives the agent a full understanding of expected 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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, algorithm, limits, and pairing with a sibling. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, which it does (top-N passages, offsets, scores). It also covers edge cases (truncation flag) and the algorithm, making the tool fully understandable for a 3-parameter function.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions. The description adds practical examples (e.g., SEC 10-K body) but does not redefine parameter semantics, so the baseline 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,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, making its unique role explicit.

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 the tool ('Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and provides a complementary tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded), giving the agent clear contextual guidance and alternatives.

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