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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals how results are returned (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores), the technical approach (BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows), and the input cap (200K chars, truncated and flagged). This is substantial behavioral disclosure that the annotations do not convey.

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 exactly three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: definition, use case/benefit, and technical details. There is no redundant or filler wording; every phrase earns its place.

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 covers the return type (passages with offsets and scores), the input constraints (max chars and truncation behavior), and the integration with a sibling tool. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool without additional documentation.

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% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by offering concrete examples for 'query' ('supply-chain risk', 'fiscal year 2024 revenue'), clarifying that 'text' is a previously fetched document (e.g., SEC 10-K body), and noting the char cap. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though the schema already carries the core constraints.

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 defines the tool's function: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It specifies the verb 'search,' the resource 'fetched record,' and the mechanism (semantic). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'already pulled' text and explicitly pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, making its niche 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 it: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also provides a concrete alternative/complement: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives clear contextual guidance without needing to list negatives.

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