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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the actual return fields and that an error is surfaced when an import failed, which is meaningful for a tool with no output schema.

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 that front-load the purpose before the usage hint; nothing is wasteful. The first sentence's phrasing ('such as a website add_website started') is slightly awkward but does not harm comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does (status, import progress, documentCount, failure error). For a single-param, read-only tool this leaves the agent nothing essential missing.

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%, so the sourceId parameter and its origin (add_website, list_knowledge_sources, get_setup_status) are already fully documented. The description references the source loosely but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 singular resource ('Read one knowledge source'), and the enumeration of returned fields (status, import progress, documentCount, error) makes the scope unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from the plural sibling list_knowledge_sources and from get_knowledge_document without opening a 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 a concrete usage scenario: 'Use it to tell the user when Aide has finished learning a site.' This is clear context for invoking it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. list_knowledge_sources for enumeration), so it falls short of the when/when-not standard.

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