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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: stable ordering, no relevance scoring or ranking, no local-state changes, and that 'Results explain matched terms without choosing skills.' This gives the agent accurate expectations about what the tool will and will not do.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: core behavior, usage strategy, then parameter semantics, and the most important distinguishing constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no per-parameter schema descriptions, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: catalog scope, ordering, matching modes, pagination/refinement guidance, and result limitations. The safety profile is already covered by annotations, so nothing essential is missing.

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 carries the parameter-documentation burden and does so well: it explains matchMode any/all, requiredTerms semantics, category/tag matching behavior, and the omit-filters-to-reach-catalog behavior. limit and cursor are only implied through 'paginate,' so not every parameter receives explicit semantic detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve matching skills from the verified local AAS catalog.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'stable catalog order, without relevance scores, ranking, recommendations, or local-state changes,' so an agent can tell search_skills apart from get_skill or registry_search.

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 usage context: 'Search one project capability at a time and paginate or refine until plausible candidates are found,' and explains how to reach the complete catalog by omitting filters and query. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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