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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a real behavioral constraint beyond them: only non-sensitive, company-visible documents are returned, which tells the agent results may be silently filtered by visibility. It does not discuss pagination or result truncation, but limit is schema-documented.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the return content, then the scope caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 values need not be detailed; the description still summarises them briefly. For a read-only, closed-world search with fully documented parameters, there is no gap an agent would need to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the interaction semantics that matter: an id fetch returns full content under `document`, and that mode supersedes the other arguments. That is genuine routing value the schema only partially conveys.

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 names a specific verb and resource (search the knowledge base) and immediately states the second mode (read one document in full by id). It also declares the return shape (title, category, content snippet) and the access scope, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does 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?

It clearly states the two invocation modes and the condition that selects the second one (pass a document id), which is the key routing decision. It does not name any alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but no sibling overlaps with knowledge retrieval, so the missing exclusion is low-risk.

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