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

readOnlyHint already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral nuance: titles and contents come back as locale references unless include='locale_field'. That is context an agent cannot get from annotations alone, though permissions and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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 tight sentences front-load the resource and filters, then add the locale caveat, with an endpoint reference tacked on. Nearly every clause earns its place; the raw HTTP path is the only mildly extraneous element.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return values (id/reference objects, locale references unless include is set) and covers all filter dimensions. It is close to complete, missing only pagination defaults and permission notes.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that include='locale_field' controls whether titles/contents are resolved — a semantic tie between two parameters the schema does not draw. It still leaves tags-format and limit/offset semantics to the schema.

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-base articles") plus the available filter dimensions (section, tags, PUBLISHED/PINNED), which distinguishes it from the single-item kayako_get_article. However, it never names the closely related kayako_search_help_center, so the boundary against that sibling must be inferred.

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 phrase "optionally by section, tags, or PUBLISHED / PINNED" implies when the filters are useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer kayako_search_help_center instead. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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