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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world. The description adds genuinely new information the annotations do not: the result excludes knowledge base content, which manages the agent's expectation about output shape without an output 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the operation first, then the scoping caveat and the redirect to the sibling. No filler.

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-param list with an output null-schema situation and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and output limitation. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, a minor gap.

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% and the agent_id description already documents the 404/403 failure modes in detail. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (an agent's knowledge bases) with explicit scope: 'Every knowledge base linked to the agent'. The parenthetical '(get one to read it)' distinguishes it from get_knowledge_base, so an agent can route correctly 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?

The parenthetical explicitly names the alternative (get one) and the condition that selects it (need to read content). It lacks an explicit statement of when-not to use it (e.g., no agent_id) but the list-vs-get split is clear.

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