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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that matching is by embedding similarity rather than keyword/substring, which changes how an agent should phrase queries and interpret misses; it stops short of describing result shape, ranking, or what happens when nothing passes the threshold.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternatives following. Slightly terse given how much parameter meaning is left unstated, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

A 9-parameter search tool with 11% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to carry the query-mode and tuning semantics, and it does not. The CRUD routing is excellent, but an agent still cannot tell which of vector / searchQuery to supply or how to tune retrieval.

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 coverage is only 11% across 9 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter guidance at all. It never explains the vector vs searchQuery alternatives, what with_vector/with_payload do, or how similarity_threshold and max_chunks affect results — a serious omission for a tool where picking the wrong input mode breaks the call.

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 mechanism (semantic/vector search) over a specific resource (agent knowledge base) and even gives the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish it immediately from list_kb_docs and from the KB CRUD 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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over list_kb_docs when searching by meaning, and routes CRUD intent to create_kb_doc / get_kb_doc / patch_kb_doc. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use cases are named with alternatives.

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