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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds that only public articles are returned and which fields come back, but says nothing about ordering, default page size, or what happens when category is omitted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the filter. The Vietnamese/English duplication is a mild redundancy but justified for a bilingual Knowledge Center tool; nothing else is wasted.

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, read-only, two-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is close to complete: scope, returned fields, and valid categories are all covered. The only real gap is default/limit behavior for the `limit` parameter.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It fully compensates for `category` by enumerating all eight accepted slugs (a real value-add the schema lacks), but it never explains `limit` — no default value, no note that it caps at 60 — so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Liệt kê bài công khai' / 'List public Knowledge Center articles') and even names the returned fields: slug, tiêu đề, tóm tắt. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like kb_search or kb_get_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Filtering by category is described, and the eight valid category slugs are listed, which implies the browsing use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus kb_search (query-based retrieval) or kb_get_page (single article fetch), and no exclusions are stated.

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