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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), description details embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing (500-char overlap), 200K char cap with truncation/flagging, and that each passage carries offset for verification.

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 a single focused paragraph with no wasted words; each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core purpose, then examples, limitations, and technical details.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains returns (top-N passages with offsets and scores), input constraints (200K chars), and technical behavior (embedding model, windowing). Also provides integration guidance with sibling tool.

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% with good descriptions already. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for text (e.g., SEC 10-K body) and query (e.g., 'supply-chain risk'), and clarifying that text must be 'already pulled'.

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 it performs semantic search inside a fetched record, provides concrete examples (SEC 10-K body, article), and contrasts with the alternative of cramming entire record into prompt.

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 when to use (record too big for prompt) and when not to use (record fits in prompt), and recommends pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding. Provides concrete guidance on input content.

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