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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, a 200K char limit with truncation and flagging, and that every passage includes an offset for verification. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, technical details, limitations, and pairing with another tool. No wasted words.

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 having no output schema, the description explains return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores). It covers the cap, truncation behavior, and embedding technique. It also describes how to combine with another tool for grounded answers. For a simple semantic search tool, this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description enhances understanding by providing concrete examples for the 'query' parameter (e.g., 'supply-chain risk') and confirming the default for 'limit'. It adds context that the 'text' parameter is the already-fetched record, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 that the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record. It specifies the verb ('search'), the resource ('text inside a record'), and the scope ('semantic search'). It distinguishes itself by stating when to use it (when record is too large) and mentions a sibling tool for grounding.

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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains that it saves context by returning only relevant passages. It also pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing a clear alternative workflow. This gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool.

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