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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-open-world read, so the description's added value is the field-scope disclosure: 'Metadata/approved fields only; no secrets, contacts or original files'. That tells the agent up front what will NOT come back, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of describing pagination behaviour, which matters given that limit and offset appear on a single-item fetch.

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 short sentences with the field-scope constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded. The phrase 'through the existing application' is vague filler that does not earn its place, keeping it from a 5.

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 read-only fetch whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description is close to adequate, and the field-scope note is helpful. But with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, an agent still cannot tell what targetId accepts or why pagination parameters exist on a single-record read.

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% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing about targetId, limit, or offset. The presence of limit/offset on a single-article getter is counterintuitive and is exactly the kind of thing the description should clarify, but it is silent.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read authorised knowledge article'), which is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings. However, it does not name its closest sibling list_knowledge_articles or explain why one would fetch a single article versus listing them.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over list_knowledge_articles, and no explanation of what targetId refers to. The word 'authorised' hints at an access prerequisite but never states it as a rule.

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