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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the return shape ('candidate summaries and IDs') and the two-step find-then-read workflow. It does not mention rate limits or the cross_container gate, but the output-format disclosure is meaningful additional context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating what is returned (summaries and IDs) and how to proceed (read_knowledge for evidence). Combined with 100% schema coverage over all 12 parameters, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly; remaining gaps (e.g., pagination mechanics) live in the schema.

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 100% with 12 fully documented parameters (cursor, tags-all semantics, contract help mode, cross_container gate, etc.), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only gestures at 'topic or filters' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find knowledge records') plus the means ('by topic or filters') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_knowledge by scoping each to a different job. An agent can tell this is a discovery/search tool versus an evidence-retrieval tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('when answering a question or locating a reference') and names an alternative (read_knowledge) with the condition that selects it ('for evidence'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the routing guidance is strong.

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