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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it returns character offsets and similarity scores, truncates inputs over 200K chars and flags them, and uses specific embedding/window mechanics (BGE-base-en, 500-char overlapping windows). This adds substantial context not available in the annotations or schema.

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 structured with a purpose statement, usage guidance, sibling pairing, and technical details—each sentence adds value without fluff. It is detailed but not verbose, front-loading the core function and then providing necessary specifics.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (truncation, output format, technical behavior) and the absence of an output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the return format (passages with offsets and similarity scores), the truncation cap, and the embedding approach, making the tool's behavior predictable for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds marginal nuance (e.g., 'text you already pulled' clarifies the text is raw content, and query examples are provided), but most parameter meaning is already well documented in the schema. It does not significantly compensate beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' which clearly indicates the tool's verb, resource, and unique scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by focusing on returning passages from a provided text, rather than answering or grounding over the whole document. Examples further clarify its specific niche.

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 the tool: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also directly mentions an alternative workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document,' which guides the agent on how to combine tools effectively.

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