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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the return payload's structure (statements carry their own status and evidence, plus revision history and disclaimers), which tells the agent this is a heavier payload than a search hit and worth fetching deliberately.

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 payload is described first, then the action trigger, then the identifier forms. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes the top-level shape, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a single-parameter, read-only, closed-world fetch, everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly is present.

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 schema already states 'UUID, slug, or canonical/API URL'. The description's addition of 'of this network' is a genuine constraint beyond the schema, reinforcing that arbitrary external URLs are not accepted, which aligns with openWorldHint=false.

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 the resource and enumerates exactly what a 'full knowledge record' contains (summary, statements with status/evidence, sources, revision history, disclaimers), which lets an agent distinguish it from search_knowledge and browse_knowledge by completeness. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Use it before quoting a result, to cite the statement's sources and status' gives a concrete trigger condition and purpose. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming the cheaper alternative (search_knowledge) for discovery, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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