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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the company-wide (not per-environment) scoping fact, which is genuine context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite an offset parameter.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler; the second sentence carries the one non-obvious fact.

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 should ideally explain what a 'document' record looks like or how listing/pagination works. It covers the resource and its scope but leaves return shape, filtering semantics of 'query', and pagination unaddressed.

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 only 33%: just 'company' is documented ('Summer company ID'), while 'query' and 'offset' carry no descriptions. The description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 (List) plus resource (company knowledge documents) and a scope qualifier ('current'), which separates it adequately from summer_knowledge_get and summer_knowledge_history. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'current' combined with the sibling summer_knowledge_history implies this is the live/snapshot listing rather than the audit trail, but that contrast is left for the agent to infer. 'Knowledge is company-wide, not per environment' is a useful scoping rule, yet there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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