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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), chunking strategy (500-char overlapping windows), input limit (200K chars with truncation flag), and output details (character offsets, similarity scores). This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage context, then technical details. Each sentence adds essential information without 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It states passages with 'character offsets and similarity scores' and mentions truncation behavior. However, it could be more precise about the output format (e.g., JSON structure) and handling of empty results. Still, it provides enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 basic descriptions for all three parameters. The description enriches understanding by providing concrete query examples and clarifying the text parameter's max length and the limit parameter's default (5) and range (1-20). It also explains how parameters fit into the overall search logic (e.g., overlapping windows).

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 identifies the tool's core action: semantic search inside a specific record. It uses a strong verb ('Search Within') and specifies the resource type ('fetched record'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating when to use it ('record too big to cram into prompt') and mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, distinguishing it from other search tools in the sibling list.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter.' It also suggests a complementary tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives for small records.

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