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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established outside the description. The description adds context about the data domain (cross-account benchmarks/priors), but no additional behavioral behaviors such as rate limits, latency, or response behavior are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It does not restate the title or replicate schema content, and the detailed parameter guidance lives where it belongs in 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?

Given the output schema, full parameter documentation, and read-only annotations, the tool is nearly complete as defined. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit pointer to query_metadata_analytics_account for account-specific analytics, which would make routing between the two knowledge-base tools fully unambiguous.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly explains the 'question' cohort semantics and the conversation_id context-warming rule, including the caution about never sharing IDs between the two knowledge-base tools. The description itself adds little over the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Query'), a specific resource (the Metadata.io marketing knowledge base), and a clear scope (cross-account industry benchmarks and priors). This clearly distinguishes it from the account-specific analytics sibling (query_metadata_analytics_account) and other campaign/account tools.

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?

The description establishes clear context: use this for cross-account industry benchmarks and priors, not for a specific company or account. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling or state when not to use it, but the 'cross-account' phrasing and the sibling list make the intended use fairly evident. It lacks an explicit exclusion statement, so it does not reach a 5.

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