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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: results are limited to the connected owner's *active approved* cards, and it explicitly disclaims any write side effect. It omits pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences with the scoping qualifiers front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence ('Open a card for its details') is slightly ambiguous since no matching open/get-card tool appears among the siblings, which costs a point on precision but not on brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be explained, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. However, for a paginated list tool the cursor semantics and the 'open a card' follow-up path are undocumented, which leaves an agent guessing about how to page through results and what to call next.

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 full burden for both parameters. 'Browse or search' hints that query is a search string, but there is no mention of cursor, paging, result ordering, or what an empty query returns, leaving the second parameter entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb pair ('Browse or search') and a precisely scoped resource ('the connected owner's active approved knowledge cards'), so an agent knows exactly what set is being read. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the sibling list is dominated by connection/setup and draft-creation tools, making this one easy to distinguish on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Browse or search' suggests this is the read path, and 'This does not create or change knowledge' rules out mutation, implicitly routing write intent to create_card_drafts. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the draft/validate tools or what a bare browse (empty query) versus a search means.

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