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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it specifies the embedding model (BGE-base-en), cosine similarity, overlapping window size (500 chars), and the 200K character limit with truncation flagging. It also discloses that results include character offsets and similarity scores, which helps the agent understand expected output.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and technical details. Each sentence adds value, though the phrase 'saves context, returns only the passages that matter' is slightly promotional but still informative. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 explains the return format (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), the truncation behavior, and the partnership with ask_pipeworx_grounded. It addresses both when and how to use the tool, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. No critical details are missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context (e.g., text examples like SEC 10-K body, query examples in schema) but doesn't significantly go beyond the schema. The limit parameter is already fully specified in the schema. Thus, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from general ask tools. It also provides concrete examples (SEC 10-K body, article) and differentiates from sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining its niche: searching within already-fetched content.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt,' and gives a named alternative: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This provides clear context and an alternative workflow, satisfying the top criteria.

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