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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the tool's role as an orientation map and enumerates the kind of content returned, which is relevant behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to call this before other tools.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main identity, and every phrase earns its place. Ending with the 'map to every other tool' framing is both useful and memorable without adding unnecessary length.

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 no-parameter, read-only overview tool with annotations and an output schema already available, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool surfaces, why it matters, and when to call it first.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The schema confirms this with an empty properties object, and the description does not need to compensate; the baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a catalogue/overview of the entire knowledge base, including document counts, folders, example paths, tags, and licences. It distinguishes itself from content-specific siblings by framing itself as 'the map to every other tool.' The title reinforces the purpose, and the description goes beyond a mere label.

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 description explicitly says to call this tool first when the agent does not know what the knowledge base holds. It gives clear contextual guidance for the main use case, though it does not name specific alternatives or state when it should be avoided.

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