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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, and a 200K char cap with truncation flagging. These details inform the agent about output format and edge cases 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 three sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose, second gives use case and benefits, third provides technical details and complementarity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler. The structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format (top-N passages with offsets and scores), input constraints (200K cap), use case, and integration with a sibling tool. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, without needing an output schema.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (text, limit, query). The description reinforces that 'text' is the already-pulled document and 'query' is a natural-language question, but this largely mirrors the schema. It does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' — a specific verb (search) plus resource (inside a fetched record) and scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded (which grounds over a whole document) and search_satellites (different domain). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains the benefit ('saves context, returns only the passages that matter'). It also names a complementary sibling, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and describes how the two tools can be chained ('fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages'). This is clear when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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