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

Beyond annotations (which are all false), the description adds useful context that the document is stored as a single unit and that embedding/retrieval is handled elsewhere. This helps set expectations about what the tool does and does not do. No contradictions with 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then use cases, then a behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, typical usage, and storage/retrieval behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it doesn't address uniqueness of names or explicit differences from url-scraping tools.

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 100% for both parameters (name and content), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies; the tool description doesn't add meaningful parameter-level detail.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource ('Add a free-form text document to the knowledge base') and explicitly lists use cases (policies, FAQs, notes, brand voice), distinguishing it from retrieval tools like query_company_knowledge and URL-based tools like scrape_knowledge_url.

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 explicit context on when to use the tool ('Use for pasted policies, FAQs, internal notes, brand voice references') and clarifies that embedding/retrieval happens elsewhere, implying it is not for retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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