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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, explains the embedding approach (BGE-base-en, cosine over 500-char overlapping windows), and discloses the 200K char limit with truncation flag. No contradiction with 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding context. Every sentence contributes useful information (use case, pairing, technical details). It is slightly longer than necessary but not bloated, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly explains the return format (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores), behavior on long inputs (truncated and flagged), and provides pairing context. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use 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 parameters are fully documented in structured form. The description adds some context by explaining text as 'already pulled' and query as natural-language, but this largely repeats the schema's examples and does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('search') and resource ('within a source'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the 'INSIDE' scope and by directly pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding over relevant passages instead of the whole document.

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' and provides a concrete alternative/workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives clear usage context and exclusions.

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