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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond them. It discloses the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity mechanism (cosine), chunking strategy (500-char overlapping windows), the 200K character limit, and truncation behavior with a flag. It also reveals that results include character offsets and similarity scores, which are important behavioral traits not covered by 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?

The description is rich but tightly organized. Each sentence contributes unique value: the core operation, the use case/benefit, the verification capability, the companion workflow, and technical constraints. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids waffle.

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 still explains the return format (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and encompasses usage context, parameter semantics, technical capabilities, and limitations (200K cap/truncation). This is complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: text is described as the fetched record with a max size, query gets concrete examples of natural-language phrasing, and limit is implied by 'top-N passages.' This goes beyond simply repeating schema descriptions.

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 the tool performs semantic search INSIDE a fetched record, with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it operates on text the user already has, not on external sources, and positions itself as a context-saving alternative to cramming whole documents into prompts.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also names a specific alternative/companion tool, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and explains the workflow of fetching with the gateway and grounding over relevant passages. This provides clear usage context and differentiates from sibling tools.

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