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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these: it explains the internal mechanics ('BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows'), discloses the 200K character cap with truncation behavior ('longer inputs are truncated and flagged'), and notes that passages carry character offsets for verbatim quote verification. This provides significant transparency not available in structured fields.

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 and front-loaded, opening with the core action in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: usage guidance, technical details, pairing suggestion, and behavioral caveat are all relevant. It is information-dense without redundancy, using about 90 words to convey a large amount of practical information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value ('top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores'). It also covers input semantics, operational limits, and the tool's relationship to other workflows. Given the moderate complexity and the richness provided, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 practical meaning by framing the 'text' parameter as content 'you already pulled' (e.g., SEC 10-K body, article) and clarifying the 'query' parameter with natural-language examples ('supply-chain risk', 'fiscal year 2024 revenue'). This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions, earning a 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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It distinguishes from siblings by describing the input-output flow (text + query → passages) and explicitly mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, thereby differentiating it from tools that fetch or ground over full documents.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also names an alternative workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This clearly states the tool's role relative to siblings.

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