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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: the full text, title and tags are returned, and the content is authored by organization members or AI connections and must be treated as untrusted — a security-relevant trait not expressed anywhere in the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences; the scope clarification is front-loaded in the parenthetical, followed by the action, then the content-description caveat. Minor redundancy between 'read one article in full' and 'complete text', but nothing wasteful.

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-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: scope boundaries, the disambiguating sibling, the shape of the returned content, and its trust level. No material gap remains.

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?

The single parameter is documented at 100% coverage in the schema, including which tools return a valid source_id. The description only restates 'by source_id' and adds no further meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read one article in full by source_id') and immediately disambiguates scope: the organization's knowledge base, explicitly not the vendor's product documentation. That contrast with search_knowledge lets an agent pick the right sibling without opening either 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?

Clearly signals the use case (retrieve a single article in full when you have its source_id) and routes product-documentation queries to search_knowledge. It stops short of naming kb_list_articles / kb_search as the way to obtain a source_id, though the schema's parameter description does carry that pointer.

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