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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: results are merged across sources, ranked by relevance, and carry provenance in the form of path and lines. It stops short of describing pagination or how ties and duplicates across sources are resolved.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the broad search scope and followed by the routing rule. Every clause carries information about what is searched, how results are combined, or when to choose this tool.

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 usefully explains that results are merged, ranked by relevance, and annotated with path and line provenance. Combined with a fully documented three-parameter schema and clear read-only annotations, this is enough for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the meaning of query, scope, and limit is already documented, including the enum values and the default limit. The description reinforces that matching covers both keywords and meaning and that scope can restrict to docs, files, or memory, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource set: search across documents, text files in file storage, and memory, with keyword and semantic matching called out. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings kb_search and kb_recall, so an agent can tell the three apart without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: use this first when unsure whether to use kb_search or kb_recall. The alternatives are named and the condition that selects this tool is stated, leaving little to inference.

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