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 real behavioral context beyond that: passages carry `source` and `addedAt`, and newer entries win conflicts, which tells the agent how to interpret results. It stops short of pagination/rate details, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the usage trigger, then conflict-resolution detail. Every sentence is substantive, though the final conflict-handling sentence is dense and slightly long.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description helpfully explains that results are passages with source and addedAt and how to resolve contradictions. Adequate for a 3-param search tool; only workspace scoping is unaddressed.

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 67%, with query and limit documented and workspaceId undocumented in both places. The description doesn't add syntax or meaning for the query/limit/workspaceId inputs; its mentions of `source`, `addedAt`, and `replaces` refer to result fields and a sibling tool, not its own parameters. Baseline 3.

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 (semantic search) and resource (brand knowledge base) plus the content it covers (website, documents, social posts, notes). It also distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings by naming delete_knowledge_source and teach_knowledge for their respective jobs.

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 says to use it BEFORE answering anything factual (prices, policies, hours, product behavior) 'instead of guessing', which is a clear when-to-use trigger. It also names the sibling tools for the adjacent when-not cases (removing an outdated source, teaching a new rule).

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