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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that both inbound and outbound knocks come back with status, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary result set (pending knocks) and appends the secondary set. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns; it covers the two categories but omits pagination, ordering, and whether inactive/completed knocks are included. Adequate for a simple read tool, but with clear gaps.

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 100% and the single api_token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the header alternative. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear list operation over a specific domain resource and distinguishes the two sets returned: knocks awaiting the user's answer and knocks the user sent with status. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like respond_to_knock or knock, and the domain term 'knocks' is unexplained, but the purpose is legible.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing 'waiting for your answer' hints at a review-then-act workflow, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the relevant siblings (respond_to_knock, knock) are never named.

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