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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds substantial behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag, and returned character offsets for verification. No contradictions with 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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, usage guidance, then technical details. Every sentence adds distinct value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (semantic search), the description covers technology, cap, pairing, and return structure (passages with offsets and scores). No output schema, but return behavior is sufficiently explained.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds extra context: text max ~200K chars, query examples, limit default 5. Goes beyond schema but not extensively; baseline 3 raised to 4.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific examples like SEC 10-K body, article, or long tool result. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and the context of saving context for large records.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and gives pairing guidance with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Provides example queries. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but usage context is clear.

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