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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals substantial behavioral traits: it returns 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores,' uses 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows,' and enforces a '200K chars' cap with truncation flagged. This gives the agent a vivid picture of what will happen when it invokes the tool.

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 four well-crafted sentences: it states the core function, the returned data, the use case, and the technical constraints. Every sentence carries distinct value, and none are redundant or verbose despite covering rich detail.

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 must explain what the caller will receive, and it does: 'get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' It also covers the 200K-char cap and truncation behavior, making it complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's contract in any context.

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 description need not explain each parameter, but it reinforces the meaning of 'text' and 'query' with examples (e.g., 'a SEC 10-K body' and query examples like 'supply-chain risk'). Still, it adds no new information about 'limit' or edge-case parameter formatting that the schema doesn't already provide, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' making the tool's function immediately clear. It further differentiates from siblings by emphasizing that the input is text already pulled from a record, not a database-wide search, which distinguishes it from tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 it ('Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and provides an alternative workflow by pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded ('fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document'). However, it lacks an explicit when-not to use or a direct comparison to other similar semantic search tools, so it stops short of fully exhaustive guidance.

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