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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by detailing the source (support.microsoft.com) and content returned (title, summary, affected builds, known issues, resolution steps). No contradiction.

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?

The description is two paragraphs, front-loading the core function and then providing usage guidance. Some redundancy exists (title/summary repeated), but it's concise overall.

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 tool with one parameter, output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the KB number format, content returned, and usage scenario. Minor omission: no mention of potential missing articles or rate limits, but not critical.

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% with a description for kb_id. The description adds examples like 'KB5063878' and clarifies that the 'KB' prefix is optional, enhancing the schema's information.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a Microsoft KB article by KB number, specifying it returns title, summary, affected builds, and later mentions known issues and resolution steps. It distinguishes from siblings like search_kb by noting it is for specific KB numbers.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when a user asks about a specific KB number,' providing clear usage context. While it does not name alternative tools, the sibling list includes search_kb, implying its contrasting use case.

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