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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are semantic merges of repeated questions and sorted by ask frequency, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not mention pagination behavior or what happens to a gap after it is answered.

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, zero filler. The core behavior (merged by meaning, ordered by frequency) is front-loaded and the follow-up action is placed second.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this is nearly complete: it says what a gap is, how results are merged and ordered, and what to do next. The one real gap is that with no output schema, the description still does not hint at the shape of a returned item (id, question, ask count, status).

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 100%, with limit, status, agent_id and in_workspace all documented inline, including the default status of 'open' and the workspace scoping caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list knowledge gaps) plus two distinguishing behaviors: gaps are merged by meaning and ordered by frequency. An agent can tell this apart from knowledge_query or kg_find_entity without opening either 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 routes the agent to the follow-up action ('Answer one with knowledge.gaps_answer'), which is the natural next step after listing. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. use knowledge_query when you have a real question rather than auditing unanswered ones), and the sibling is referenced as 'knowledge.gaps_answer' rather than the actual tool id knowledge_gaps_answer.

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