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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond this by disclosing the retrieval mechanism (BGE-base-en embeddings, 500-char overlapping windows), the hard 200K character limit with truncation and flagging, and that returned passages include character offsets for verbatim quote verification. No contradiction 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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core action and then layering usage guidance and technical constraints. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly long and could be trimmed without losing value; still, structure is effective.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description wisely explains return values (passages, offsets, similarity scores, truncation flag) and gives input constraints. It also covers integration with a sibling tool, making it self-sufficient for an agent to decide, invoke, and interpret results correctly.

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. The description adds meaningful context: it clarifies 'text' is a previously pulled record (e.g., SEC 10-K), gives concrete query examples, and reinforces that 'limit' controls the number of returned passages. This adds value beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 opens with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and specifies both inputs (text + natural-language query) and outputs (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by stating it operates inside a single already-fetched record, not over a broader corpus.

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 states when to use it: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and contrasts with ask_pipeworx_grounded, saying to 'fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This gives the agent clear decision criteria and names the complementary alternative.

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