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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char limit with truncation flag. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, logically organized: what it does, when to use, technical details, pairings. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores). Also covers embedding model, windowing, and char limit. Complete for a tool with 3 params.

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%. Description enriches each parameter: 'text' is 'document text you already pulled', 'query' is 'natural-language query' with examples, 'limit' max passages. Adds context beyond schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific verb (search) and resource (text). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and using context-saving approach.

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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and provides alternatives (pair with ask_pipeworx_grounded). Also mentions the 200K char cap and truncation behavior.

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