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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds result-shape behavior the annotations cannot: a cap of 10 results, per-result id/title/URL for citation, and that the text block duplicates the JSON as a string. It does not discuss ranking or empty-result 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?

Front-loads what the tool is and what it returns, then the routing rule. Slight redundancy between "It is the same search as search_knowledge" and the follow-up instruction about which clients should use search_knowledge, but both reinforce routing rather than repeating verbatim.

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?

Covers the three things an agent needs here: what it does, when to pick it over search_knowledge, and what the response contains (count cap, per-result shape, duplicated text block). Output schema existence means return values need no deeper explanation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the query string, including that question words are ignored. The description adds nothing about the query param, so the baseline of 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 ("Searches the knowledge base") plus the contract it implements, and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_knowledge. An agent can route between this and search_knowledge without opening either 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 an explicit selection rule: use only when the client expects the search/fetch pair, otherwise call search_knowledge. Both the positive condition and the exclusion are stated, and the fetch sibling in the list is implicitly the pair partner.

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