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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: it lists both uploads and scraped URLs, explains that reviewStatus/syncable determine readiness, and clarifies that content is not returned here but fetched via a separate GET endpoint. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and content retrieval note. Front-loaded with the primary action, no fluff, and well-structured.

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 list tool with only 2 params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, delta sync, and how to retrieve content. It is complete enough for an agent to effectively decide when to invoke it and what to do with the results.

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% with both parameters having descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces updatedAfter's role for delta sync, adding meaning beyond the schema. limit is not elaborated, but it's straightforward. The extra context for updatedAfter nudges the score to 4.

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 'List merchant knowledge base documents (uploads + scraped URLs)', clearly stating the verb and resource, and specifying the two types of documents. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_knowledge_document (single document retrieval) and add_knowledge_text (creation).

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 clear context: use reviewStatus/syncable to check readiness for agent retrieval, and pass updatedAfter for delta sync. It also hints that content is fetched via a separate endpoint, implying this tool only lists metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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