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

While annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds rich behavioral details beyond those hints: exact embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), chunking strategy (500-char overlapping windows), 200K char cap with truncation flag, and output specifics (character offsets and similarity scores). This goes far beyond the structured hints and sets accurate expectations for the agent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage rationale, integration workflow, and technical constraints. Every sentence contributes unique information—no filler or redundancy. The structure is optimized for quick parsing.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return format (passages with offsets and scores), handles edge cases (truncation flagged), and provides integration context with a sibling tool. The schema is simple and well-described, and the description fills all essential context gaps for a read-only search utility.

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 already covers all 3 parameters with descriptive text (text max ~200K, query with examples, limit with default). The description restates some of these details (e.g., max chars) and mentions 'top-N passages', but does not add meaningfully new param-level semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 within a supplied text, using an explicit verb+resource structure ("Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record"). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the 'inside' aspect and by providing concrete examples (SEC 10-K body, article) that show scope. The pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded further clarifies its niche without ambiguity.

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", and explains the benefit (saves context). It also describes a complete workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded, indirectly indicating when not to use (when whole document grounding is acceptable). This provides clear, actionable guidance on tool selection.

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