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

Despite annotations already covering read-only, open-world, and idempotent behaviors, the description adds concrete technical details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K character cap with truncation and flagging, and that results include character offsets and similarity scores. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Three sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. The second gives usage context, and the third packs technical behavioral details. No filler or redundant phrases; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description explains the return format (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and the truncation behavior under the 200K cap. It also covers the use case, relationship to a sibling tool, and implementation details, making it complete for a moderately complex search utility.

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 example text types (SEC 10-K, article) and query examples ('supply-chain risk'), but does not materially change or extend the technical meaning of the parameters beyond the schema. The 'top-N' mention for limit is generic and not as precise as the schema's 1-20/default 5.

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 opens with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly pairing it with ask_pipeworx_grounded and explaining its role as a context-saving search over a specific text.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also describes an alternative workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded, telling the agent to ground over relevant passages instead of the whole document, thus covering both when and how it fits relative to other tools.

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