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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail (which sources are included and what each change record carries), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size limits for what is clearly a paged list endpoint.

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 sentences, no filler, and the second sentence is an actionable directive placed after the scope statement. The first sentence is a dense noun pile that carries a lot of information but reads as a title restatement.

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 read-only paged list tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know pagination behavior, default page size, ordering of returned changes, and the default for 'actor'. The description covers the 'what' well but leaves the 'how to page and in what order' unresolved.

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 only 33%: 'company' is documented, but 'offset' and the 'actor' enum values are not. The description partially compensates for 'actor' (use 'summer' for Summer plans and Teach Summer edits) but never explains the default 'all' value or what 'offset' does, leaving one of three parameters fully undocumented in both places.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Read company knowledge changes') and enumerates the sources and payload contents (before/after revisions, GPT summaries, processing state, provenance), so an agent knows what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as summer_knowledge_history or summer_knowledge_list, 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?

The only usage instruction is 'Set actor=summer for Summer plans and Teach Summer edits,' which is parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no indication of when to prefer this over summer_knowledge_history or summer_knowledge_list, nor any prerequisites.

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