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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds context: includes both uploads and scraped URLs, delta sync usage, and content retrieval details. No contradictions, and adds value beyond 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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and context for content retrieval. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema (assumed present), the description is complete. It explains what is listed, how to filter for readiness, delta sync, and how to retrieve full content. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining 'updatedAfter' is for delta sync, which goes beyond the schema description. Limit is covered by schema. Overall, the description enhances understanding.

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 it lists merchant knowledge base documents including uploads and scraped URLs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_knowledge_document (single doc) and delete_knowledge_document by specifying scope and use cases.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use reviewStatus/syncable to see what is ready for agent retrieval' and 'Pass updatedAfter for delta sync.' Also references content retrieval endpoint, implying when to use list vs. get. Could be improved by mentioning alternatives like query_company_knowledge.

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