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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: truncation at 200K chars with flagging, use of BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows. However, it does not mention authentication or rate limits, which are not critical here. The additional context earns a 4, as annotations already cover the core safety profile.

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 well-structured: first sentence states core purpose, second provides use case and benefits, third pairs with companion tool, and final sentence gives technical specifics. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive, fitting within a few lines.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no enums, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, technical details (embeddings, window size, truncation), and return format (passages with offsets and scores). No gaps are apparent; an agent can confidently invoke this tool based on this description.

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 description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds concrete values: text max size (~200K chars), limit range (1-20) and default (5), and query examples (e.g., 'supply-chain risk'). This enriches the schema beyond mere present. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the extra context pushes it to 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 the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record. The verb 'search' and resource 'record' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded as a complementary tool, emphasizing internal search versus external grounding. The scope is well-defined: top-N passages with offsets.

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 says when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It explains benefits (saves context, returns only relevant passages) and mentions a companion tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded) for grounding. This provides clear guidance for selection among siblings.

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