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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing safe read behavior. The description adds crucial details: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).' This goes beyond annotations to explain technical limits and how search works, with no contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately addresses usage, then pairs with alternatives, and finally provides technical details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (semantic search with embeddings, truncation, pairing), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, how it works technically, return format (passages with offsets and scores), and interaction with sibling tools. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states what is returned, making it complete.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds operational context by explaining the purpose of passing text and query ('Pass the text you already pulled... plus a natural-language query') and provides example queries. While the schema already describes the parameters, the description enhances understanding of their role in the tool's workflow.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by explaining the context of searching within a record that is too large for the prompt, and mentions a complementary sibling tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded), differentiating its role.

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 states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It explains the benefit (saves context, returns only passages that matter) and provides an alternative: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This guides the agent on both usage and exclusivity.

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