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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds the use-case context but doesn't disclose any additional behavior like pagination limits or result ordering. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 short sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. There is no filler or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and only read-only annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains the search functionality but omits details about return format, pagination behavior, or any constraints. For a simple search tool, it is adequate, but more completeness would be expected given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'por texto e por pasta', which maps to 'search' and 'knowledge_folder_ids', but does not explain 'limit' or 'offset'. This partially clarifies the parameters but leaves the pagination parameters undefined, which is a gap for a low-coverage scenario.

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 it searches knowledge base articles by text and folder, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning 'base de conhecimento' and the use case before answering a ticket, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to find the procedure before answering a ticket, providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it doesn't mention any exclusions or alternatives, though none seem needed given the sibling list has no other knowledge base search tool.

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