get_knowledge_base

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

The description discloses the output structure (URLs grouped by document type), which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid slugs, or whether the operation is read-only. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

The description is two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second clarifies the output format. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return structure. It lists document types and mentions grouping, which is sufficient for basic selection. Minor gaps like slug definition and error behavior are acceptable for this simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the 'slug' parameter beyond implying it identifies the company. No format, source, or required syntax is provided, leaving the agent to guess or rely on external context.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves investor documents for a company, listing specific document types (annual reports, earnings releases, etc.) and notes that it returns URLs grouped by document type. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_financials or fetch_document.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest other tools for different data needs.

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