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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by describing the returned document fields, sort order, indexing states, and failure reason, though it does not discuss pagination or permission requirements beyond the 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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the tool returns and then immediately follows with concrete usage guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: title, type, indexing state, length, passage count, and failure reason. Combined with complete input schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both knowledgeBaseId and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly identifies the resource (documents inside one knowledge base) and the returned fields, including sort order and indexing states. It also distinguishes itself from knowledge_list by naming that sibling and the follow-up scenario in which this tool is used.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool after knowledge_list when the user asks what a knowledge base contains or why an upload is not used in answers. This gives both the alternative tool and the triggering conditions with no ambiguity.

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