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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries little additional safety burden. 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/knowledge' adds an HTTP-method mapping but no further behavioral detail such as 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the API mirror reference provides a useful anchor without redundancy.

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, read-only list operation with all parameters documented in the schema, an output schema present, and safety annotations covering side effects, the description is complete enough. Nothing essential to calling the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already explained in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning to query, category, or business_id beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agent knowledge base entries for a business'), and the 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/knowledge' line anchors it to a concrete API operation. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like upsert_knowledge, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 tool's purpose makes it obvious it should be used when listing knowledge entries, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Context is clear but exclusions are absent, leaving usage to be implied rather than stated.

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