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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description, and the description adds important behavioral details such as default draft exclusion, cursor-paginated listing, query/cursor exclusivity, and the cross_container gate restriction. It does not contradict the annotation and gives a solid picture of side-effect-free behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, while parameter details are structured and scannable. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description explains the return concept (candidate summaries and IDs) and pagination cursor, which is essential since there is no output schema. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape or error behavior, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results at a high level.

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?

All 12 parameters are documented with meaningful semantic detail, including defaults, constraints, and conditional behaviors like query rejecting cursor and include_drafts interacting with status. The schema description coverage is 100%, and parameter descriptions go beyond basic type info to clarify filter semantics and edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool finds knowledge records by topic or filters, and explicitly distinguishes it from read_knowledge by noting it returns candidate summaries and IDs for later evidence retrieval. The verb 'find' and resource 'knowledge records' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides contextual use cases ('when answering a question or locating a reference') and points to read_knowledge for evidence, which helps select among siblings. It does not exhaustively contrast with write_knowledge or manage_knowledge, but the read-only annotation and the candidate/evidence split give sufficient guidance for typical use.

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