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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine over 500-char overlapping windows, and has a 200K char cap with truncation flagged. This greatly exceeds what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage justification, then technical implementation details. Every sentence contributes distinct value without redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent gets back (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), the truncation cap, and how it integrates with ask_pipeworx_grounded. This is a complete picture for a semantic search tool with non-trivial behavior.

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%, but the description adds useful context beyond the schema: examples of valid text inputs (SEC 10-K, article, long tool result), clarifies the 200K character cap, and reinforces the query-as-natural-language concept with examples in the schema. Limit is fully specified in the schema, so no extra credit needed there.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by emphasizing it searches within already-pulled text rather than querying a broader system, and it provides concrete examples (SEC 10-K body, article).

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and directly names the alternative/companion tool ask_pipeworx_grounded, explaining how to pair them. This clearly communicates when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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