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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the underlying API endpoint (GET /api/v3/knowledgebases), but says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether ratings/fields can be absent.

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, front-loaded with what is returned. The trailing endpoint reference is mildly useful metadata but not essential for invocation, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient; naming the returned fields partially compensates for the missing output schema. Only pagination/return-shape behavior is absent.

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% — both 'page' and 'items_in_page' carry 1-based/default and range documentation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge-base articles') and enumerates the returned fields (product, keywords, section, category, ratings). The resource is distinct from all siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with other list_* tools like atera_list_tickets.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling is given. The agent must infer that this is the tool for browsing KB content purely from the noun in the name; nothing in the description routes it against the 19 sibling tools.

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