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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds rich behavioral details: embedding model (BGE-base-en), cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation and flag. No contradictions 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?

Description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then usage guideline, then technical details. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

No output schema, but description adequately explains return values: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores', plus each passage has an offset for verification. Covers limits, pairing, and truncation behavior. Complete for a search tool.

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%, with each parameter having a description. Description reinforces and expands: 'text' gets max char limit, 'query' gets examples, 'limit' gets default range. Adds marginal value beyond schema, elevating from baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it performs semantic search inside a fetched record, using specific verbs ('search inside') and resource ('a fetched record'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by describing when to use each.

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 provides usage guidelines: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context'. Also mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding over relevant passages, clarifying alternative approaches.

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