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

Adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: 200K char truncation with flag, BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char windows, and character offsets for verification. Annotations only hint at safety/idempotence, not these specifics.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: input, output (passages with offsets and scores), limitations (char cap, truncation), embedding model, and relationship with sibling tool. No output schema, but description compensates fully.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context: max chars for text, query examples, default and range for limit. Adds value without redundancy.

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?

Clearly states semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific resource (text from a record) and action (search). Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and implicit difference from other tools.

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 (record too big for prompt) and provides alternative (ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding). Also implies when not to use (small records).

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