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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint true; the description reinforces that with READ-ONLY and adds meaningful context about ingest lifecycle ('parsing'/'embedding' in flight, 'ready' searchable, 'failed' with error) and the ownership constraint. No contradiction with 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and statuses are front-loaded, downstream usage is one actionable clause, and the read-only flag is a deliberate final signal. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 a single well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and safe read annotations, the description covers the full operational contract: what is listed, what the statuses mean, how it relates to aggregate listing, and how returned ids are used downstream. Nothing essential for 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?

The only parameter, kb_id, is already fully documented in the schema as coming from findagent_list_kbs, so the description adds no new format or syntax detail. The 'you own' qualifier is a mild additional constraint but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the documents in a knowledge base you own'), enumerates return fields and exact ingest statuses, and distinguishes itself from findagent_list_kbs and findagent_delete_kb_document. An agent can immediately tell this is the per-document listing 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?

It clearly frames this tool as the per-document detail behind findagent_list_kbs's aggregate document_count and instructs using the returned id with findagent_delete_kb_document. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the sibling relationships and read-only scoping provide enough guidance.

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