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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds a non-obvious disclosure that omitting space_id does not create a Personal space — a real side-effect clarification that annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing pagination progression or result-shape hints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with scope before the conditional and the alternative. Every clause carries distinct information — no restatement of the name or title.

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 read-only, three-parameter list tool with an output schema and full annotations, this covers purpose, scoping, the space_id edge case, and next-step routing. The only real gap is how paging with cursor/max_results is expected to work.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain the most semantically loaded parameter (space_id omission behavior). However, cursor and max_results are never mentioned, so paging direction and page-size semantics are left entirely to the name and output schema.

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 ('Page current reusable private skills') plus a scope constraint ('in one authorized Space'). This is clearly distinguishable from private_skill_get (exact entry), private_skill_create and private_skill_update without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: omitted space_id reads the existing Personal space, private_space_personal is for explicit first-use setup, and private_skill_get should be used to read a specific entry. Both the when-to-use and the two named alternatives with their selecting conditions are present.

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