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 without the description. The description adds the global-vs-project scoping distinction, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor/offset existing, nor about what include_removed does.

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 short, front-loaded with the core distinction, and every clause maps to a distinct call shape. The staccato sentence fragments ("path: that global document") are efficient but borderline cryptic.

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 17-parameter tool with a nested query object, no output schema, and 12% schema coverage, the description leaves far too much unspecified: none of the filtering or paging parameters are addressed, and the return shape of "every global document" is unknown. It is complete only for the two-parameter scoping story.

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 only 12% across 17 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden and it only explains path, project_id, and the no-argument case. The remaining 14 parameters — including a nested query object, date filters (since, due_after, due_before), and paging controls — get no meaning from either the schema or the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read knowledge") and explicitly scopes out vault values, which separates it from the project_vault sibling. The four argument-combination cases tell an agent exactly what each call shape returns, though the telegraphic fragments take a moment to parse.

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?

"not vault values" is a real exclusion that points the agent toward a different tool for vault data, and the argument matrix implies when each mode applies. However, nothing is said about the other 13 filter parameters (q, kind, since, status, cursor, include_removed, etc.), so an agent has no guidance on when to narrow versus read everything.

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