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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, free to call, scoped to published articles in this tenant, and never returns drafts or other tenants' articles. This provides clear behavioral expectations without relying on 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 moderately sized but every sentence earns its place. It covers purpose, usage, rationale, cost, and constraints without fluff. The structure front-loads the core action and follows with contextual guidance.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what to expect in terms of scope and limitations, and why it is beneficial. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides a detailed description for the 'ids' parameter, including count limits and usage guidance. The tool description only repeats 'by id' without adding new semantic information, so it does not exceed the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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's action: 'returns the FULL text of published knowledge-base articles in this tenant, by id.' It distinguishes itself from search_kb, which returns snippets, making the specific purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to 'Use it straight after search_kb' and explains the workflow: 'search to find the right articles, then read them here before you answer.' It also gives the rationale for using it (grounding answers in real text) and notes the limitation that drafts/other tenants' articles are not returned.

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