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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered externally. The description adds only that matching articles are returned; it says nothing about ranking, result limits, or coverage boundaries within the company corpus.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the content scope in a parenthetical. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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, single-parameter search tool this covers the essentials: what it searches and what it returns. It stops short of describing result shape (snippets, titles, links) or limits, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 0%, so the description should compensate but barely does. The single 'query' parameter is largely self-documenting by name, and '(policies, how things work)' hints that free-text topical queries are expected, but nothing is said about keyword vs natural-language syntax.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search the company's knowledge base') and clarifies the content domain with '(policies, how things work)'. That is enough to separate it from topical siblings like hr_money or hr_projects, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parenthetical content scope — an agent can infer 'use this for policy/how-to questions'. There is no explicit when-to-use framing and no routing away from overlapping siblings such as hr_money or hr_projects, which could also cover policy topics.

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