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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing the response payload ('full text content') versus the lighter list output, information not present in annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the payload description and followed by the sourcing hint. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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 correctly fills the gap by naming the returned content, and the schema carries parameter error behavior. It is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read, though it says nothing about auth requirements beyond what the schema states.

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 both agent_id and knowledge_base_id are documented with error semantics in the schema itself (404/403 cases). The description only adds the provenance hint for knowledge_base_id and nothing about agent_id, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one knowledge base of an agent') plus the payload scope ('including its full text content'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_knowledge_bases. The parenthetical contrast makes the boundary explicit.

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 concrete prerequisites ('Get its id from list_knowledge_bases') and via the parenthetical makes clear when to prefer the list tool instead. It stops short of naming the other retrieval/update siblings (replace_knowledge_base), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not matrix.

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