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

Read-only behavior is already declared by annotations, and the description reinforces it. It adds useful behavioral context: results vary by argument mode, a canonical help URL may be returned, and the tool is designed to keep context small by not preloading content. It does not mention behavior when both slug and query are provided, but that is a minor gap for this kind of lookup tool.

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 dense but purposeful, with the core purpose and rationale front-loaded, followed by call patterns, use cases, and topics. It is somewhat run-on and could be split into clearer sentences or bullets, but every part contributes meaning without significant fluff.

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 read-only knowledge tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers invocation modes, return expectations, topic list, and when to use it. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of returned index/body/search results is enough for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: slug returns one topic's full body with optional canonical URL; query performs a keyword search; no args returns the index. This substantially compensates for the bare schema, though exact slug rules and mutual exclusivity are not spelled out.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an on-demand reference/knowledge fetcher, with explicit scope ('Koongo help/reference knowledge') and a specific set of topics. It distinguishes itself from the many item/status/report sibling tools by describing its role as the lookup aid for interpreting those tools' outputs.

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 defines three concrete call modes (no args for index, slug for topic body, query for search) and gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to sibling tool families like list_*_items, get_*_item_report, *_status, and *_report. This leaves little doubt about when the agent should reach for this tool versus the surrounding operational tools.

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