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

The description discloses implementation details beyond the annotations: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flagging, and return of character offsets and similarity scores. This adds significant context while being consistent with the read-only/idempotent 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?

The description is a single compact paragraph but front-loads the core action, then covers use case, pairing, and technical details efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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 fully covers return values (top-N passages, offsets, similarity scores), input constraints, and failure behavior (truncation flag). It also provides a clear use case and integration with a sibling tool, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the 'text' parameter (e.g., 'SEC 10-K body', 'article') and revealing truncation behavior for inputs near the cap, which the schema does not mention. This is a slight but meaningful enhancement over the schema alone.

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 performs semantic search inside a user-supplied record, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_code or get_file_contents. The phrase 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' is a specific verb+resource construction, and the mention of ask_pipeworx_grounded as a companion further clarifies its niche.

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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and provides a pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, explaining the workflow. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative, exceeding the minimum requirement.

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