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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data and the description doesn't contradict it. What the description adds is only resource context (which client ecosystems the packs target). It says nothing about pagination flow, result ordering, or rate limits, so it goes no further than the annotations on behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the follow-up routing is placed second, which is the right order. Every clause 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?

The tool is a simple read-only search with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and complete annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or paging mechanics. It is nearly complete; only a brief note on pagination or result ordering would make it airtight.

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 the schema already documents limit, query, cursor, category, and response_format in detail, including the empty-query behavior and the default of 8. The description's 'by name, publisher or topic' loosely restates the query semantics but adds no syntax, format, or paging guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') plus the resource ('agent skills') and names the search dimensions: name, publisher, or topic. It even scopes the resource to SKILL.md packs for specific clients. It does not differentiate itself from other search/list siblings such as search_servers, list_categories, or whats_new, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit routing for the natural follow-up: 'Call get_skill for the install command.' That is a real alternative, but the description gives no when-not guidance and does not say when to prefer this over list_categories or search_servers, so it is clear context without exclusions rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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