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

Discloses embedding model (BGE-base-en), chunking method (500-char overlapping windows), character cap (200K chars with truncation flag), and return info (passages with offsets and scores). Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent; description adds rich technical detail beyond annotations.

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 front-load the core purpose, then add technical details and pairing advice. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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, description fully covers return values (top-N passages, offsets, similarity scores). Mentions truncation behavior and pairing with sibling. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly with limited 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% with good descriptions. Description adds minimal extra value: examples for query parameter and reaffirms 200K char limit. No nested objects, no enums. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'search inside' with concrete examples (SEC 10-K body, article) and resource 'fetched record'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' by stating they pair together. No ambiguity.

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 to cram into the prompt' and 'saves context'. Mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but the guidance is strong enough.

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