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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by warning that 'without a key, documents will not ingest' and noting the cost implication ('$0 to the platform — you use your own key'). This is valuable beyond the schema, although it does not cover all side effects (e.g., reversibility).

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 a compact three-sentence block with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then addresses model choice and the critical key-binding caveat, and ends with optional scoping. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

Given that an output schema exists and all five parameters are documented in the schema, the description only needs to add the operational context. It covers the essential decisions an agent must make (model selection, key binding, org scoping) and the critical consequence of skipping the key. Nothing needed for a correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for embedding_model (small default, large for higher quality) and bind_embedding_key (necessary for ingestion), while also clarifying org_id scope. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions without being redundant.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Create a FindAgent Knowledge Base you own' and then clarifies what it is ('a document + memory store an agent can be attached to and answer grounded in, with citations'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like attach, add_document, list, or delete, so an agent can identify the correct tool.

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 provides clear context for how to use the tool: choose an embedding model based on quality, bind your OpenAI key for ingestion, and optionally scope to an organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the create operation is unique among siblings and the practical conditions are well explained.

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