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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds ordering by name, the default archived filter, that each row carries archived_at, and that total is the full match count independent of limit/offset. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits any mention of empty-result behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste; scope and default filtering are front-loaded before pagination and return-shape details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needn't explain return values, and it still adds ordering, filter defaults and total-count semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this browse tool 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 limit, offset, archived and tenant_slug are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the archived semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (paginated browse) and resource (groups in the tenant) plus ordering (by name), which an agent can distinguish from kb_groups_get or kb_groups_create without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, but the resource and verb combination is unambiguous.

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 scope (active/non-archived only) and the exact condition to switch (pass archived=true to list archived instead), giving an agent clear selection logic for the flag. It does not name alternatives like kb_groups_get for a single group, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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