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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: embedding model (BGE-base-en), window size (500-char overlapping), character cap (200K chars with truncation and flag), and return format (passages with offsets and similarity scores). No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers usage, technical details, and limitations. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 explains the return format (passages with offsets and similarity scores) and operational details (embedding model, windowing, char cap, truncation). It also contextualizes the tool within the sibling toolset. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter purposes but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions. For example, 'text' is described as 'The document text to search inside (max ~200K chars)' which matches the schema. The description does not introduce new parameter constraints or enrich understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning ask_pipeworx_grounded as a complement, and specifies that it returns top-N passages with offsets, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context...' It also provides usage guidance by pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and explains the benefit of offsets for verification. No exclusion criteria are needed, and the guidance is clear.

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