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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description's main added value is behavioral output context: each item comes with a searchable-yet status, and the tool can explain empty search results. It does not describe pagination or full return shape, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 with no waste. The listing behavior is stated first, followed immediately by the two usage triggers, so the most important context 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?

With zero parameters, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool lists, the key searchable-status field, and when to reach for it. It could be slightly more explicit about the returned item fields or relationship to search_knowledge, but it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on purpose and output context instead.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists stored workspace knowledge and indicates whether each item is searchable yet. It distinguishes the tool from search_knowledge implicitly through the diagnostic 'search came back empty' use case, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives two concrete when-to-use contexts: when the user asks what the agent knows about them, and when a search returned nothing and the agent needs to explain why. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name search_knowledge as the alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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