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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), chunking strategy (500-char overlapping windows), and input size cap (200K chars with truncation flag). These details are not present in the annotations and are crucial for correct usage.

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 well-structured paragraph. The main purpose is stated upfront, with every sentence adding essential information (use case, output, limitations, pairing). No redundant or verbose language.

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 explicitly mentions that returned passages include character offsets and similarity scores. It also covers input limits, truncation behavior, and relationship to a sibling tool. The description is complete and leaves no critical questions unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enriches the parameter understanding by providing examples for the query parameter and clarifying the text parameter's character limit. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 that the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record, giving concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article) and contrasting with using the whole document. It also hints at differentiation from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 explains when to use the tool (when the record is too big to fit in the prompt) and how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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