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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the knowledge is durable, `agentNotes` is machine-distilled from agent conversations rather than user-authored, and both are auto-included in every Cactal agent request. It does not describe response size or empty-state 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core definition is front-loaded ahead of the usage instruction. Nothing repeats the title or restates structured fields.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names both returned components and explains their provenance, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The uncovered `websiteId` parameter and the absence of any guidance on empty or uninitialized knowledge are the remaining gaps.

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?

There is one required parameter, `websiteId`, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It never mentions the parameter at all — no scoping semantics, no note that it identifies the website whose knowledge is returned — leaving the agent to infer this entirely from the name.

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?

Specific verb (Returns) plus a specific resource (the website's durable project knowledge) and an explicit enumeration of the two components returned (user-maintained `content` and distilled `agentNotes`). It reads clearly as a read tool, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like websiteKnowledge_read, websiteKnowledge_list, websiteKnowledge_view, or websiteKnowledge_search.

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?

"Read them before working on a website" gives an explicit situational trigger for calling the tool, which is clear context rather than implied usage. It offers no when-not conditions and does not route the agent away from the near-identical knowledge siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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