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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the output includes doc/chunk counts and relevance cutoff, which is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple list. It also scopes to the tenant, but doesn't state read-only or auth requirements, though it's implied. This is adequate for a simple tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that starts with the verb 'List,' immediately conveying the action and resource. It includes necessary details without any redundant words.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema is provided, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output content. It is complete for a simple list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it doesn't conflict with the 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 clearly states the tool lists 'this tenant's knowledge bases,' a specific verb-resource pair with scope, distinguishing it from singular get_knowledge_base. The mention of doc/chunk counts and relevance cutoff further specifies the output. This matches a high purpose clarity.

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 implies usage context by saying 'List this tenant's knowledge bases,' making clear it is for enumerating all KBs for the tenant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_knowledge_base or state exclusions. This is clear context without exclusions, scoring a 4.

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