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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare safe read-only/idempotent behavior), the description discloses concrete algorithmic details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K character cap with truncation flagging, and that every passage includes offsets for verbatim verification. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of what the tool does internally and what to expect.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then covers usage, companion workflow, and technical constraints in a structured, dense manner. Every sentence contributes unique information, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It also covers the input size cap, truncation behavior, and intended pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. For a three-parameter tool, all essential aspects are addressed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for the 'text' parameter (e.g., SEC 10-K body, article) and by linking the 'limit' parameter to the phrase "top-N passages." It enriches the schema without repeating it, though it doesn't individually describe each parameter beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ("Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record") and clearly identifies the resource (a text record already pulled). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing the input is already-fetched content and by explicitly mentioning a complementary tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded), making the 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context". It also names an alternative/complementary workflow (fetch with the gateway, ground over passages with ask_pipeworx_grounded), giving the agent clear decision rules and context for when this tool is appropriate.

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