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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts not in the annotations: results are sorted newest first, and each item carries usage relative to the tier's limits. It says nothing about pagination, maximum result count, or whether empty results differ from an unconfigured knowledge base.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ordering and usage clauses are informative rather than redundant. Slight compression cost in that the parenthetical ordering detail sits mid-sentence, but nothing needs cutting.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the notable content of results (usage vs tier limits). Missing pagination and result-count boundaries keep it just short of complete.

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 sole parameter businessId is documented in the schema as defaulting to the API key's business, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter or when an explicit businessId would be needed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List uploaded knowledge documents') plus return-shaping detail ('newest first', 'with usage against the tier's limits'), which distinguishes it from the singular get_knowledge_document and get_knowledge_usage siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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 verb 'List' — the natural reading is 'call this to enumerate documents'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to get_knowledge_document for a single document or get_knowledge_usage for usage alone, both of which are close alternatives in the sibling set.

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