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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the ordering logic (by verification date) and the fact that topic is ignored. This helps the agent understand what to expect from the results.

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 sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and freshness signal, then immediately covers use cases and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the single optional parameter, output schema presence, rich annotations, and sibling tool context, this description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how results are ordered, when to use it, and when to use alternatives. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented. The description reinforces the recency/verification-date concept but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Most recently verified knowledge objects' ranked by verification date. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search and get_topic by noting it ignores topic relevance entirely. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily differentiated from siblings.

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 provides explicit use cases: judge corpus currency or see what changed since last read. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use instruction, directing agents to search or get_topic for relevance-based retrieval. This is strong guidance for tool selection.

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