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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scope context ('company-wide, not per environment') that goes beyond annotations, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or result size.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the scope caveat and tag semantics. No filler, though the tag sentence is somewhat dense.

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 paged list tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description leaves gaps: how query and offset interact, whether results are paginated, and roughly what a document contains.

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 25% (company is the sole documented property). The description compensates well for tag by giving semantics and integration-name examples, but query (search semantics) and offset (pagination) are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List current company knowledge documents') and adds scope the title doesn't ('Knowledge is company-wide, not per environment'). It is distinguishable from siblings like summer_knowledge_get or summer_knowledge_history by the list verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear rule for the tag parameter ('pass tag to list documents with that tag, such as an integration name') but offers no guidance for query or offset, and no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling statement (e.g. get vs history).

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