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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap, truncation flagging, and character offsets for verification. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict output characteristics.

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 every sentence earns its place: it states the core function, the use case, the pairing with a sibling, the embedding/algorithm details, and the input cap. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has no filler.

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?

For a read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return characteristics (top-N passages, offsets, similarity scores), the algorithm, the size cap, and the truncation behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the 200K char cap and the nature of the query, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: semantic search inside a fetched record, with a clear contrast to alternatives. It names the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded and explains the pairing, so an agent can distinguish this tool from the broader ask_pipeworx family without opening schemas.

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 says when to use it: when the record is too big to fit in the prompt, and it names the alternative ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding over relevant passages. It also gives a concrete workflow: fetch with the gateway, then search within. This is explicit usage guidance with an alternative.

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