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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag. No contradictions 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 three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states the core action, second explains when and why to use it, third adds technical details. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers behavioral details, use cases, technical constraints, and pairing suggestions. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the max input length (~200K chars) for 'text', natural-language query examples for 'query', and the default and range for 'limit'.

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, with specific examples like SEC 10-K body or article. It distinguishes itself by explaining it returns passages with character offsets and similarity scores, which is unique 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use: when the record is too big for the prompt. It also mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, slightly lowering the score.

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