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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations, such as the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), window size (500-char overlapping), and a 200K char cap with 'truncated and flagged' behavior. This provides crucial operational context that annotations alone do not convey. It also states that returned passages include offsets, enabling verification.

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 yet efficient, with every sentence serving a purpose. It front-loads the core functionality, then covers use case, pairing, and technical details without redundancy. The structure flows logically from definition to usage to limitations.

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 is remarkably complete. It covers return value structure (passages with offsets and scores), performance characteristics (cap, truncation), and integration with a sibling tool. No critical aspect is omitted.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as implying 'text' is previously fetched content ('the text you already pulled') and giving query examples. However, it does not substantially enrich the meanings of 'limit' or 'text' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the tool as 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it works on user-supplied text. It also specifies the output (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the primary use case: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter.' It also provides an alternative and complementary workflow by pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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