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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral nuance that this is an agent-simulated retrieval test rather than an admin listing/search, but says nothing about what is returned (answer, chunks, scores) or whether the call has side effects on test-run state.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the reason second; the dashboard analogy earns its place as a mental model. Minor redundancy between 'the way an agent would' and 'like the dashboard's test search,' but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what a test search yields (matching chunks, scores, or a synthesized answer) so an agent can interpret the result of a verification step. The undocumented knowledge_base_id is the other remaining gap.

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 coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented as 'A question a user might ask,' and the description reinforces that framing by describing agent-style querying. However, 'knowledge_base_id' has no description in either place, and the description adds no format or scoping detail.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Search a knowledge base') plus an explicit purpose: simulating an agent's test search to verify retrievability. It's clearly distinguishable from the other search_* siblings by resource, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

States a clear use case ('check the answer can be found before relying on it') and a mental model ('like the dashboard's test search'). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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