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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating result ordering is newest first and enumerating returned fields (kb_id, title, url, release_date, applies_to), though it does not disclose potential external-source behavior or pagination limits beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose and usage condition. A small redundancy exists between the first paragraph's summary of returned data and the later 'Returns' section, but the later section adds exact field names, so it is not wasted.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description effectively covers query semantics, return structure, sorting behavior, and a sibling alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could slightly improve by explicitly linking 'have a KB number' to get_kb_article.

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 input schema already documents query and limit, with examples and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that queries may target topic, keyword, build, or KB number, going slightly beyond the schema examples. Limit is not expanded in the description, but the schema covers it fully.

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: searching official Microsoft Knowledge Base articles for Windows 10, Windows 11, and Windows Server updates. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_kb_article for fetching full article content, making the tool's role clear.

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?

The description explicitly identifies when to use the tool: Windows update, patch, and known-issue lookups when a KB number is lacking, and it points to get_kb_article as the alternative for fetching full content. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use other search siblings, hence 4 rather than 5.

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