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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond by disclosing return format (passages with offsets and similarity scores), the embedding model and window size (BGE-base-en, 500-char windows), and the 200K char cap with truncation flagging. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose, the second explains the use case and benefits, the third provides technical implementation details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically without fluff.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return shape (passages, offsets, scores). It also covers edge cases (truncation and flagging) and pairs with sibling tools. The 3-parameter tool is fully contextualized for correct invocation.

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. The description adds meaningful context for the text parameter with examples ('a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result') and clarifies that the query is natural-language with illustrative examples. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, though limit is not mentioned in the description.

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 identifies the verb+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It specifies the inputs (text + query) and outputs (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It also differentiates from siblings by noting it is for searching within a record, unlike ask_pipeworx_grounded which grounds over passages.

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: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also provides an alternative/complementary tool: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives clear context and an exclusion for cases where the record fits in the prompt.

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