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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: returns passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows, and has a 200K char cap with truncation flagged. These are concrete, non-obvious behaviors that help an agent predict output and side effects.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct role: core definition, usage guidance, integration with sibling, and technical specifications. No word is wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 adequately explains return shape (passages with offsets and similarity scores), the truncation behavior, and integration with a companion tool. It covers the key edge case (character cap) and gives confidence about reversibility and safety through annotations. This is a complete, self-sufficient description.

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 clarifying the 'text' parameter as a fetched record (versus arbitrary text), giving illustrative query examples, and implicitly describing 'limit' via 'top-N passages.' It doesn't just repeat schema; it enriches the meaning of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'inside a fetched record' and giving concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also names a companion tool and explains how they complement: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This provides both inclusion and exclusion context.

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