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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses key behavioral traits: returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, and has a 200K char limit with truncation flagging. This fully prepares the agent for how the tool operates.

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 that is concise yet comprehensive. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Key details are front-loaded ('Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record'), and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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 that there is no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent can expect: passages with offsets and similarity scores. It also specifies the embedding model, window size, and truncation behavior, making it complete for understanding inputs, behavior, and outputs in a single description.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds contextual value by explaining 'the text you already pulled,' providing example queries, clarifying the 'limit' parameter as 'top-N passages,' and mentioning the char limit for 'text.' This supplements the schema effectively.

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 identifies the tool as performing semantic search inside a fetched record, using specific verbs ('search') and resource ('text'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the workflow: fetch first, then search within, and mentions complementary tools like 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains that it 'saves context, returns only the passages that matter.' It also provides a pairing recommendation with ask_pipeworx_grounded and implies when not to use it (when the document fits in context).

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