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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the knowledge is 'approved, current public knowledge,' results are catalog-based, and free text/personal data are not accepted. This gives the agent a clearer operational picture without contradicting 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?

The description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence with a second short exclusion sentence. Every phrase adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 rich annotations and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main selection and invocation context: what kind of data is searched, what inputs are allowed, and what is prohibited. Minor gaps remain around whether topic and question_id are mutually exclusive or whether pagination parameters are needed, but these are not severe.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the two central parameters by saying lookup is by 'catalog topic or question ID' and that free text is not allowed. However, it says nothing about limit, cursor, or locale, leaving pagination and output language semantics to be inferred from the schema and output schema.

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: 'Find approved, current public knowledge by a catalog topic or question ID.' It also sets boundaries ('No free text or personal data') that distinguish it clearly from the sibling search_public_knowledge tool, so the agent can tell which tool fits its task.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the query is a catalog topic or question ID. It also states a firm exclusion ('No free text or personal data'), which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or say 'use search_public_knowledge for free text,' so it stops just short of a 5.

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