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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuine behavior: hidden-project docs are excluded by default, this mirrors the web /docs default view, and the filter is bypassed when project_slug is explicit. That default-exclusion rule is the kind of silent filtering an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then sort, then the hidden-default caveat — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries a behavioral claim; the repetition of the hidden logic twice is the only slack.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover invocation semantics — which it does, including pagination framing, sort options, and the tenant-scoped default view. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's own filter names and sort options, and its include_hidden/project_slug interaction is already spelled out verbatim in the schema property descriptions. It adds framing value but little new parameter meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Paginated browse of documents in the tenant') and immediately separates itself from retrieval siblings by noting that the hidden filter does not affect kb_documents_search or kb_chunks_retrieve. An agent can pick between listing and searching without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the default view and how to override it with include_hidden, plus the project_slug bypass rule, which is real decision guidance. However it never states plainly when to call this versus kb_documents_search (e.g. broad enumeration vs text matching) — that contrast is only implied by the aside about hidden docs.

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