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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces the read-only nature by explaining the purpose of the data and the read/write boundary. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but with this rich annotation set the bar is lower and the added semantic context is meaningful.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a definition, then view semantics, then args. The structure is excellent. Minor padding in the definition sentence, but every element is purposeful.

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?

Given the rich annotations and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is read, the two modes of operation, and the read-only boundary. The one missing piece is a note on the user_intent parameter and return format, but for a read-only lookup tool this is close to complete.

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 33% and the description compensates by explaining what the enum view values ('sources', 'stats') return. brand_id is described as required. The third parameter, user_intent, is not mentioned in the description, leaving a small gap, but overall the description substantially closes the schema coverage gap.

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 ('Read the brand's knowledge base sources') and defines what knowledge entries are. The sibling set includes add_knowledge and manage_knowledge, and the description explicitly draws the boundary with 'Read-only here; authoring stays in the editor,' so an agent can tell this apart from the write siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the two views and what each returns, and clearly excludes authoring ('authoring stays in the editor'), pointing the agent to add_knowledge/manage_knowledge for writes. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both present.

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