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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds rich behavioral details: embedding model ('BGE-base-en embeddings'), similarity measure ('cosine'), window size ('500-char overlapping windows'), character limit ('cap is 200K chars, longer inputs truncated and flagged'). This fully discloses what happens under the hood.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core purpose, use case guidance, and technical details. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

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 complexity of the tool (semantic search, embedding, truncation), the description covers input constraints (200K char limit), output format ('top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores'), and integration with a sibling tool. There is no output schema, but the description adequately conveys what the agent can expect.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds usage examples for the query parameter and clarifies the text parameter as 'document text', but does not add critical new information beyond the schema.

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, specifying it returns top-N passages with offsets and scores. It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining how it pairs and differs: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This provides a clear use case and differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context.' It also mentions an alternative workflow ('Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded'). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or list other alternatives beyond that one sibling.

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