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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: unknown tags return the topics that do exist, so a miss still yields useful information. This clarifies an edge-case behavior that annotations cannot express.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing either core behavior, routing guidance, or an important edge case. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema exists.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, how to treat unknown tags, and how parameter spelling is validated. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the tag parameter is already documented. The description adds extra semantic value by stating the tag must be spelled exactly as get_overview publishes it and that an empty answer means the topic does not exist, which helps agents avoid false assumptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the knowledge objects carrying a tag.' It distinguishes itself from search and get_overview, and clarifies that topics are content-backed tags, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('browse a known topic'), when to use search ('when you have a question rather than a tag'), and when to use get_overview ('to see which tags exist'). It even explains the behavior for an unknown tag, giving clear decision guidance.

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