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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive hints. The description adds rich behavioral detail: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K character cap, truncation with flagging, and return fields (offsets, similarity scores). This substantially exceeds the annotation baseline and provides valuable operational transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborated with usage context, pairing guidance, and technical parameters. Every sentence contributes distinct information and there is no fluff or repetition of schema field names.

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 lacking an output schema, the description states what is returned (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It also covers input limits, truncation, and a pairing workflow. Combined with strong annotations and schema, this description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'text' should be already-fetched content, explains the truncation/flagging behavior for long inputs, and provides a concrete example query for 'query'. These additions enhance understanding without redundancy, warranting a 4 rather than a 3.

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' and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it operates on already-retrieved text rather than external sources. It specifies concrete use cases (SEC 10-K body, article) and output (top-N passages with offsets and scores), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and contrasts with ask_pipeworx_grounded, advising to 'fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative tool, exceeding basic usage expectations.

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