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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: results carry a date and, where applicable, an expiry, which helps the agent judge fact staleness. It omits whether expired facts are filtered out and whether results are ranked or truncated.

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, front-loaded with the action and with zero filler or repetition of schema/annotation content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description should say what comes back and how expiry affects inclusion; it gestures at result metadata but leaves the expired-fact filtering and result count semantics unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, including defaults and caps for limit and the default-bank behavior for bank, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that the query is a question; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Recall facts from your team's memory') plus the retrieval mode ('relevant to a question'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling kb_search or kb_read, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

'Relevant to a question' implies semantic recall rather than keyword lookup, which hints at usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of kb_search as the alternative. Usage must be inferred.

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