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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the knowledge base is 'reviewed' (vetted) and results are 'grounded snippets with source document IDs' (providing traceability). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for output quality and provenance.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by concrete use cases. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague content.

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 tool has a rich output schema and high annotation coverage, and the description covers purpose and usage scope. Minor gaps remain, such as not mentioning behavior when no results are found, but given the output schema and sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (query, limit, maxSnippetChars) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself doesn't elaborate on parameters, but it implies that 'query' is a search string. Since the schema already provides full parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Search this company's reviewed knowledge base and return grounded snippets with source document IDs.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('company's reviewed knowledge base'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_knowledge_document and list_knowledge_documents by emphasizing it's a query/search operation.

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 usage context: 'Use for merchant policies, FAQs, pricing notes, brand guidance, and other uploaded references.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this search tool is appropriate.

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