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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial non-obvious details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char truncation with a flag, and character offsets for verification. These go well beyond the structured annotations and help the agent anticipate tool behavior.

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 compact yet information-dense, with every sentence contributing to purpose, usage, pairing, or mechanics. It is front-loaded with the core action and keeps related details together, making it easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes return values ('passages with character offsets and similarity scores') and edge behavior (truncation flag for inputs over 200K chars). It provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool without additional ambiguity.

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, but the description adds meaningful context: concrete examples for text ('a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result') and query ('supply-chain risk', 'fiscal year 2024 revenue'), and clarifies that the output is passages with offsets and similarity scores. This exceeds what the schema alone provides, though not dramatically.

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 uses a specific verb ('search inside') and resource ('fetched record'), clearly distinguishing this semantic-search-over-provided-text tool from sibling tools like search_images or ask_pipeworx. It immediately states the input (pulled text + natural-language query) and the output (top-N passages with offsets and scores).

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and explains the benefit (saves context, returns only relevant passages). It also names a companion workflow with ask_pipeworx_grounded, saying to ground over relevant passages instead of the whole document, which provides clear usage guidance.

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