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

Discloses internal mechanics: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, and a 200K char cap with truncation/flagging. Complements annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) with specific technical details. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: first defines core function, second provides usage context and pairing, third gives technical details. Every sentence is information-dense and front-loaded. No fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (passages with offsets and scores). Covers chunking, truncation, and pairing with gateway tool. All relevant behavioral and usage aspects are addressed.

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% and the description enhances parameter understanding: the query is described as 'natural-language' with examples, limit has a default and range, and text is explained with usage context and max size.

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 explicitly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and details the inputs and outputs (top-N passages with offsets and scores). It distinguishes itself by focusing on searching within an already-fetched text, contrasting with external search tools among siblings.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. Explains the benefit (saves context) and the returned offsets for verification. Directly pairs with a sibling tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded) for grounding over passages.

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