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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that results are paginated and include a total count, and by explicitly requiring both query and locale for full-text search. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 four sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action, then enumerates filter/sort/search capabilities and the paginated return format. Every sentence earns its place and no information is unnecessarily repeated.

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?

The description covers every parameter group—labels, data source types/IDs, sorting, full-text search, and pagination—and mentions the return shape with total count. Combined with a rich schema and output schema, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like default page/limit values and max limit are already in the schema, so they don't hurt completeness.

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 high (75%), so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description summarizes filtering, sorting, and search requirements but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, such as valid enum values or default behavior. It reaches the baseline for a well-schematized tool.

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: 'List nodes in the knowledge base.' It is clear that this is a listing operation, distinct from sibling tools like read_node (single node) and create_node/update_node. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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 clear context for the operation and explains parameter-level conditions (e.g., 'Provide query and locale... requires both parameters'). It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over read_node for a single node, or list_data_sources when filtering by data source details. Usage is implied but not contrasted with alternatives.

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