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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds specific technical details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation, and return of character offsets. No contradiction with 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 five sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with necessary details. It is concise without redundancy, though slightly more efficient phrasing could be used.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores), the embedding model, window size, and truncation behavior. It is complete for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides for the parameters (e.g., the 200K cap is in both). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 action ('Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record') and the resource ('a fetched record'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it is for large records that cannot fit in the prompt and pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and provides an alternative workflow: 'fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document' using ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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