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

Adds rich context beyond annotations: returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings with 500-char overlapping windows, and enforces a 200K char cap with truncation flagging. This directly informs the agent about output shape and edge-case behavior, complementing the read-only/idempotent hints.

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 compact paragraph with a clear flow: purpose, usage scenario, pairing, and technical behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured logically.

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 annotations and schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, how it behaves (truncation, output format), and how it integrates with ask_pipeworx_grounded. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke 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. The description adds value by elaborating on the text parameter with real-world examples and framing 'top-N' as the limit parameter, plus explaining the offset feature. It slightly exceeds what the schema provides, but the limit param is not deeply enriched, so a 4 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing searching within already-fetched text, contrasting with other tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded. Examples (SEC 10-K, article) further anchor the purpose.

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 describes when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It names the alternative ask_pipeworx_grounded and explains the pairing pattern, giving clear guidance on when this tool is preferred and how it fits in a workflow.

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