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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing strategy (500-char overlapping windows), and input cap (200K chars with truncation flagged). It also notes that every passage includes an offset for quote verification, which is critical trust information. 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 every sentence earns its place: it starts with the core action, then usage recommendation, then complementary tooling, then technical details. It's a single coherent paragraph with no redundancy, and the key use case is front-loaded.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (passages, offsets, similarity scores), and its technical constraints (embedding model, window size, truncation). The agent has enough information to invoke it 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 the baseline is 3. The description augments the schema by clarifying the 'text' parameter as the fetched record, providing concrete query examples, and explaining that 'limit' controls top-N passages. It does not deeply elaborate beyond the schema but adds enough context with the 'text' cap and passage-level results to merit a 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 opens with 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' which is a specific verb+resource combination that immediately clarifies the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, emphasizing that it searches within already-fetched content rather than fetching anew.

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 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt,' giving a clear condition for deployment. It also mentions the alternative/complement ask_pipeworx_grounded, explaining how to combine tools for grounding over relevant passages, which tells the agent when to prefer this tool.

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