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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond by disclosing the embedding model (BGE-base-en), window size (500-char overlapping), similarity metric (cosine), and hard cap (200K chars, truncated and flagged). It also explains that each passage carries an offset for verbatim quote verification, which is crucial behavioral context.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and technical details. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses clear, scannable language. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the caller receives (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and the tool's limitations (200K char cap, truncation flag). It also provides real-world context (SEC 10-K, articles, long tool results) and integration guidance. The description is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'text' is 'a fetched record' but doesn't elaborate on 'limit' or 'query' beyond what the schema already says. The example queries in the schema are sufficient, and the description doesn't significantly augment parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record') and details the input (text + query) and output (top-N passages with offsets and scores). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing ask_pipeworx_grounded and by emphasizing that it searches inside already-fetched text rather than grounding over a whole document.

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 states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt', and explains the benefit (saves context, returns only relevant passages). It also pairs with a sibling tool, ask_pipeworx_grounded, giving a clear integration path. This provides both when-to-use and alternative context.

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