get_knowledge_base

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output structure (grouped by type) but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. It adequately signals a read-only operation but lacks depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and output format. Minor improvement could be structuring the listing of document types for clarity.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains what is returned and grouping, but fails to define the parameter or address potential errors. The lack of output schema notes means the description must clarify the response format more thoroughly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the 'slug' parameter is undefined. The description does not explain what a slug is, how to obtain it, or its format. Users must infer from context, which is insufficient.

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 all investor documents for a company, listing specific document types and indicating the output format (URLs grouped by type). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fetch_document' which likely retrieves a single 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'fetch_document' or other data retrieval tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, company identification, or scenarios where this tool is or is not appropriate.

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