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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores', discloses the embedding model and chunking ('BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows'), and reveals input limits and truncation behavior ('cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged)'). This goes far beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent anticipate outputs and edge cases.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines function and output, the second explains when to use it and the pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, the third provides technical transparency. No filler or redundancy.

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 having no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (passages with offsets and similarity scores). It covers input constraints (cap, truncation), algorithm details, use-case rationale, and the complementary workflow. For a search tool of this complexity, this is complete and self-contained.

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 does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema: 'text' is already described as the document text, 'query' already has examples, and 'limit' is self-explanatory with min/max in the schema. The only marginal addition is the phrase 'Pass the text you already pulled', but this is contextual workflow, not new parameter meaning. Hence a 3.

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', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the input is an already-pulled text, unlike broader search tools like ask_pipeworx or query. The phrase 'INSIDE a fetched record' preempts confusion with tools that search external datasets.

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 states 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter'. It also names a complementary/alternative tool: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives clear when-to-use and how-it-fits guidance, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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