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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: truncation at 200K chars with unflagging, the use of BGE-base-en embeddings, 500-char overlapping windows, and cosine similarity. It also explains the return payload (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), which is not in the schema. This fully discloses operational behavior.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: definition, use case, example, return fields, pairing with a sibling, and technical details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the annotations/schema. While longer than the two-sentence ideal, it packs substantial useful detail without being verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values – it does ('top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores'). It also covers the truncation behavior and embedding methodology, and it places the tool within the broader workflow (pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded). Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context for the 'text' parameter by specifying it must be a previously fetched record (e.g., SEC 10-K body, article, long tool result). It also reiterates the character cap, reinforcing the schema's max limit. The query and limit parameters are well-defined in the schema, and the description adds examples for query. Overall, it adds value over the schema.

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 fetched record, with a specific verb ('Search Within a Source') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'inside a fetched record' vs. other search tools, and it explicitly names a complementary tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded) for grounding over passages.

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 gives an explicit use case ('Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and explains the pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative search tools (like wgs_search) as substitutes, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives matrix present in top-tier examples.

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