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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the dual-mode contract, the list fields returned (name, type, status), and that search returns a grounded answer plus supporting snippets. Missing only things like pagination or freshness limits, which are minor here.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by the two behavioral branches. The parenthetical gloss on 'Teach AI' documents earns its place by clarifying what counts as a source; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. Both operating modes and the intended use are covered, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema description already explains that the query is searched semantically or null to list sources. The description restates that contract ('With no query, lists those sources. With a query, semantically searches their CONTENT') but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb+resource pair ('the organization's own uploaded knowledge sources') with the scope defined precisely (files, links, pasted text added by the org). It also disambiguates the two distinct modes — list vs. semantic search — so an agent can predict the behavior before 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 states when to reach for it: 'Use it to ground ideation or to answer questions from the org's own material.' That is clear context for selection, but no exclusion or named alternative is given, so an agent must infer the boundary against siblings like company_data on its own.

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