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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: truncation at 200K chars with flagging, embedding model (BGE-base-en), overlapping windows, and output includes offsets and similarity scores. This exceeds the baseline set by 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then use case, pairing, and technical details. Every sentence provides distinct value—no fluff. Length is appropriate for the complexity, and structure moves from high-level to implementation specifics.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores), input constraints (200K chars), usage context, and technical behavior. It fully equips 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: clarifies 'text' is 'already pulled' content (not a URL/id), gives query examples ('supply-chain risk'), and explains limit as top-N passages. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, justifying 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by emphasizing it operates on text you already pulled, and explicitly pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded. The scope is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

States exactly when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' Also provides an alternative workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded, and explains benefits (saves context, verifiable quotes). This is explicit usage guidance with a named alternative.

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