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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses technical behavior: uses BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation and flagging, and returns 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?

Concise at about 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds distinct value: defines tool, use case, sibling pairing, technical details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 3 params, no output schema, but with annotations covering safety, the description fully explains: what you get (top-N passages with offsets and scores), how it works (embeddings, windows), and limitations (200K char cap). It is complete for an agent to understand invocation and expected outcome.

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% with detailed descriptions (e.g., text max chars, query examples, limit range and default). The description adds context that text comes from a fetched record and that output includes offsets and scores, but this is marginal additional value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 plus extra context warrants a 4.

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, returning passages with offsets and scores. It uses specific verbs ('search inside', 'pass the text', 'get back') and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing 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 when to use: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. Provides a clear alternative workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives both usage context and alternative.

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