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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds implementation details beyond annotations: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, and a 200K char cap with truncation and flagging. It also mentions verifiable offsets for quotes, adding useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 tightly written sentences. Starts with the core action, moves to use case, and ends with technical details. No filler; every clause adds value. The structure is well front-loaded, with the most important information first.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return format: top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. It also covers the 200K cap, truncation flag, and pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with each parameter (text, limit, query) having a description. The description adds workflow context (pass already-pulled text, natural-language query) and reinforces the 200K char limit, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already documents. However, it clarifies how the parameters interact, giving a 4 instead of baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it operates on already-fetched text, and explicitly mentions returning top-N passages with offsets and scores. The pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded further distinguishes its role.

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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains that it saves context and returns only relevant passages. Provides a direct alternative/companion relationship with ask_pipeworx_grounded, suggesting a workflow. This gives the agent clear decision criteria for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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