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

Description adds details beyond annotations: character offsets, similarity scores, embedding model (BGE-base-en), window size (500-char), char cap (200K), truncation flagging. Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, nondestructive, but description enriches with implementation specifics.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds essential information: use case, return details, pairing, technical specs.

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, description thoroughly explains return structure (passages with offsets and scores), performance (500-char windows, BGE embeddings), and limits (200K chars). Complete for agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value with examples for query ('supply-chain risk', 'drug interactions'), default limit, and max char constraint for text. Enhances understanding beyond schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states semantic search inside a fetched record, returning passages with offsets and similarity scores. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use (when record too big for prompt) and pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Clearly guides agent on when to invoke.

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