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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It does not: it only restates the read intent and the lookup mechanism, and omits what happens for unknown ids, token budget limitations, or differences from other getter tools.

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 one short sentence that states the core operation immediately. It avoids restating schema details, yet the phrase 'or slug' is packed in without elaboration, keeping the description tight and front-loaded.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema carry most of the execution detail, so the description only needs to orient the agent. It is mostly complete for a simple read, but the ambiguity around 'slug' and the lack of sibling differentiation prevent it from being fully self-sufficient.

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%, and the schema already documents id, detail, and max_tokens with meaningful descriptions. The description adds only 'or slug' as an alternate lookup key, but the schema contains no slug parameter and does not clarify how a slug maps to the id property, so the added value is small and potentially ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('canonical knowledge'), and mentions a lookup route ('by id or slug'). It is reasonably distinguishable from get_memory and get_claim, though 'canonical knowledge' is somewhat vague and the description does not explicitly contrast it with its siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use get_knowledge versus get_memory, get_claim, get_post, or search. The description implies a read operation but leaves the selection logic entirely to the agent, with no exclusions or routing cues beyond the noun 'canonical knowledge'.

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