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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: BGE-base-en embeddings, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K cap with truncation flagging, and that every passage carries character offsets for quote verification. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition, use case, pairing with sibling, and technical constraints. No filler; the information is front-loaded and efficiently packed.

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 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers input expectations, output shape (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), limits (200K chars, truncation), and its relationship to ask_pipeworx_grounded. With annotations covering safety, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for all 3 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples for the text parameter (SEC 10-K body, article, tool result) and clarifies that the text is already fetched and not to be retrieved, plus the truncation flag behavior for long inputs. These enrich the bare schema but aren't critical due to already-solid schema descriptions.

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' – a specific verb (search), resource (fetched record), and scope (inside). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explaining it operates on already-fetched text and pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it's not a fetch or grounding tool itself.

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' and highlights the benefit of saving context. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding over relevant passages, giving clear when-to-use and with-what-to-pair guidance.

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