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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the index is limited to *published* knowledge (implying drafts/internal docs are excluded) and results are ranked 'best matching' documents returned as a `results` collection. It does not mention pagination or result caps.

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: purpose and scope first, return shape second, follow-up action last. No filler, no restatement of the title, and it front-loads the most decision-relevant information.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers source scope, result shape, and the natural next step (`fetch`). The one material omission is disambiguation from the near-identically-named sibling `search_knowledge`, which an agent must resolve to pick correctly.

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?

Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it well ('A question or keywords, in the customer's words'). The description adds no query syntax, length, or formatting guidance beyond the schema, 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 resource with scope: search the workspace's *published* knowledge (help center articles, website pages, other sources). It also names the return shape (`results` with `id`, `title`, `url`). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling `search_knowledge` (or `list_knowledge_documents`), which is a real ambiguity for a tool generically named `search`.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope (find published knowledge to cite), and it explicitly chains forward: 'Read a result in full with fetch.' But it never says when to choose this over `search_knowledge`, `list_knowledge_documents`, or `get_knowledge_document`, so the selection condition is left to inference.

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