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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the underlying endpoint (GET /snippet.json) and disclosing the response envelope { valid, page_stats, data:[...] }, which is meaningful since no output schema exists. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, endpoint second, return shape third. Nothing is repeated from structured fields and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, endpoint, and response envelope. The only omission is how the free-form params object is practically used for filtering, which the schema gestures at but does not exemplify.

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%, so both _page and the free-form params object are already documented. The description adds nothing about filter syntax or which query-string operators are valid, 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 ('List') plus resource ('reusable content snippets'), which an agent can distinguish from sibling list tools such as knowledgeowl_list_articles or knowledgeowl_list_glossary_terms. No explicit sibling differentiation is offered, but the resource noun does the disambiguating work.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: call this to enumerate snippets. There is no statement of when to prefer it over other enumeration tools, no mention of filter use cases, and no prerequisites, but the intent is unambiguous for a simple list operation.

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