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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond by specifying the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), chunking strategy (500-char overlapping windows), and input cap (200K chars with truncation and flag). These details help the agent understand behavior and limitations.

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 about 4 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage guidance, technical details, and a pairing suggestion.

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, the description clearly indicates return values (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It also explains truncation behavior and pairing with another tool. The agent has all necessary information to decide when and how to use this tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by elaborating on the 'text' parameter (max ~200K chars, truncation) and providing example queries for 'query.' The 'limit' parameter is only covered by schema, but the description's additional context raises the score above baseline 3.

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 starts with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It clearly defines the verb (search), resource (text inside a record), and scope (inside a fetched record). The examples (SEC 10-K, article) and mention of pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded differentiate it from sibling tools.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It explains the benefit (saves context, returns relevant passages with offsets for verification) and indirectly suggests not using for small records. It references the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded as a complement, providing usage context.

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