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

Annotations declare readOnly/OpenWorld/idempotent, but the description goes further by disclosing technical details: embeddings model (BGE-base-en), cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, and the 200K char cap with truncation flagging. It also describes output format (passages with offsets and similarity scores), adding significant context beyond the annotations.

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?

Despite being information-dense, every sentence earns its place. The structure front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, a pairing alternative, and finally technical details—all in under 100 words. No redundancy exists, and it remains highly scannable.

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 tool without an output schema, the description covers return values (passages, offsets, scores), operational constraints (cap, truncation), and integration with a sibling tool. It gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it appropriately, including examples of queries.

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 covers all params descriptively, so baseline is 3. The description adds nuance by framing 'text' as 'what you already pulled' and clarifying the natural-language query purpose. It also reveals that inputs longer than 200K are truncated and flagged, which is not in the schema and enriches understanding of the text parameter's behavior.

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 stating the tool's function as searching within a provided text. It distinctively differentiates from siblings by explaining it consumes already-retrieved text (e.g., SEC filings) and returns relevant passages, unlike ask_pipeworx_grounded which operates over the whole document.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. It also names the sibling tool ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative, suggesting a workflow of fetching with the gateway and then grounding over passages, providing clear comparative guidance.

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