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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the re-indexing context and trigger scenarios, but does not explain what gets replaced, permission needs, or side effects beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose and example triggers are packed efficiently into the description.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with rich annotations, the description gives enough to select the tool and states when to use it. It remains thin on parameter identification and does not clarify return behavior or whether the reingestion is synchronous or asynchronous.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions document_id. The phrase 'a knowledge base document' loosely identifies the target resource, yet adds no detail about the parameter's meaning or expected value.

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 and resource: re-ingest/re-index a knowledge base document. It is distinct from create/update/delete/get KB document siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives to sharpen differentiation.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use conditions: after the source page changed or ingestion failed. It lacks when-not guidance or explicit alternatives such as update_kb_document, so it stops short of a top score.

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