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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the search mechanism (BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows), the output structure (passages with character offsets and similarity scores), and a critical truncation behavior (200K char cap, flagged when truncated). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, usage guidance, and technical specifics without redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core function, the second explains when and why to use it, and the third gives essential operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), key constraints (200K char limit, truncation flag), and a clear use case. It also connects to a sibling tool, providing the agent with a complete decision and invocation 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?

The input schema already fully describes all three parameters (text, limit, query) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific context beyond examples of text types and query phrasings, which the schema also includes. It does not substantially increase understanding of parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the tool operates on text already pulled, not on external data sources, and explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx_grounded's workflow. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's unique function.

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 names a complementary alternative, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and explains the pairing workflow ('fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages'), giving the agent clear decision guidance.

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