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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal output content (scores, curation state, findings) which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination ordering, result limits, or whether the scan data is fresh — real behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned attributes appended. Nothing is wasted, though the tail clause listing three attributes reads slightly as a run-on rather than a clean structure.

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?

For a paginated list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a partial picture of the return shape but omits pagination behavior and result ordering. It is adequate to select the tool but not fully sufficient to predict its behavior.

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%, including a detailed note on when the organisation parameter is needed, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists scanned skills) and names the salient returned attributes — curation score, Curated/Quarantined state, open findings — so the agent knows what the call yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_skill or list_findings, but the list-vs-get distinction is clear from the name and wording.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description frames it as an enumeration of the organisation's skills, which suggests it is the entry point before drilling into get_skill. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no mention of paging through results via cursor, so the agent must infer from the schema.

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