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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral details: character-offset outputs, similarity scores, BGE-base-en embeddings, 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K character cap, and that longer inputs are truncated and flagged. This adds substantial context for safe and accurate invocation.

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 dense but well-structured: definition, use case, integration, then technical details. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than strictly necessary. Front-loaded core purpose, with implementation details at the end, making it easy for an agent 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 lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return format (passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and behavior (overlapping windows, truncation). It is complete for a search tool with this complexity, covering inputs, outputs, limitations, and use context.

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 meaning by providing concrete examples for the query ('supply-chain risk', 'fiscal year 2024 revenue'), clarifying that 'text' is the previously fetched record (e.g., SEC 10-K body), and explaining limit's default and range. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming ask_pipeworx_grounded as a companion and contrasting its use case (searching within already-fetched text vs. other operations).

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 provides an alternative workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool and how it integrates with siblings.

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