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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description goes beyond annotations by revealing the embedding model (BGE-base-en), cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, the 200K char cap with truncation flag, and that outputs include offsets for verbatim verification. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, each purposeful: first states the core function, second explains when to use it and the benefit, third notes the integration with a sibling tool, and fourth gives technical details. No repetition or filler; information is front-loaded and tightly 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?

Though there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (passages with character offsets and similarity scores), truncation behavior, and the 200K char limit. It also describes the end-to-end workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual examples for text ('SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result') and clarifies the query type, plus the character cap, which enriches parameter meaning beyond the schema's bare descriptions. However, it doesn't add distinct semantics for the limit parameter since the schema already covers its bounds and default.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and specifies the exact operation: pass text and a natural-language query, receive top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it works on already-fetched text rather than querying a knowledge base, and explicitly pairs with 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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and recommends a complementary workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded. This tells the agent when to choose this tool and how to combine it with a sibling, which is excellent guidance.

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