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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining canonicality ('reads current server state and does not manufacture company facts'), idempotency ('safe to repeat'), and the confirmation boundary. These are meaningful behavioral traits that help an agent decide how to invoke the tool, and they fully align with the readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, later sentences are boilerplate-heavy and confusing, such as 'Prerequisite: authenticated active organization access plus every prerequisite stated above' — there are no prerequisites stated above in this description. The confirmation boundary sentence is also verbose and could be streamlined.

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?

With no output schema and only 33% parameter schema coverage, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the parameters behave. It does not mention result format, pagination, or semantics of query/includeGlobal. The behavioral notes help but leave key operational details missing for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 only 33% — query and includeGlobal are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain what 'query' expects, what includeGlobal controls, or how the search results are shaped. Only _corply_context receives schema-level documentation, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Search the organization's context memory + Corply reference KB for relevant facts.' This clearly identifies recall as a retrieval tool. It doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the read/search semantics naturally distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like remember and record_operating_fact.

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 when you need facts from the organization's context memory or Corply reference KB. The prerequisite and read-only framing further clarify the usage case. However, it does not mention exclusions or explicitly point to alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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