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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich transparency.

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 short but poorly structured. It mixes instructions for the user with an unclear reference to another tool, making it verbose in meaning while lacking clarity. It could be more concise and direct about listing skills.

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 description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of skills with summaries). It implies comparison of summary and when_to_use but never explicitly states the output format. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions (handle, contract, container_id). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 does not state that this tool lists PCD skills. Instead, it gives meta-advice about finding a working method, comparing summary and when_to_use, and fetching with run_pcd_skill. This is misleading and does not match the tool name 'list_pcd_skills'.

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?

The description references run_pcd_skill as a way to fetch a chosen method, but it does not clearly explain when to use list_pcd_skills versus its siblings. The guidance is implicit and confusing, lacking explicit conditions or alternatives.

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