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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination, result size, ordering, or whether an unfiltered call returns everything. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully enriches the 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, correctly front-loading the core verb and the optional filtering. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting the guidance an agent actually needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a two-parameter listing tool, the description leaves the param vocabulary and the sibling-routing question unanswered, making it only minimally complete.

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 0% and the two parameters (kind, category) carry only maxLength constraints. The description merely restates their names through "filtered by category or kind" without explaining accepted values, formats, or the relationship between the two filters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb and resource ("List knowledge-base entries"), but it is notably broader and vaguer than the tool name and title, which scope this to error messages. An agent cannot tell from the description alone how this differs from siblings like get_error or explain_error, which also concern errors.

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 says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus get_error/explain_error, nor any prerequisites or context. The only usage-adjacent content ("optionally filtered") is really parameter information, not guidance.

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