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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: no cross-Space reads, no implicit Personal creation, and the empty-page-with-has_more-true paging quirk plus next_cursor continuation. It doesn't mention auth requirements (the regex sign-in note lives only in the schema) or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the scoping statement, then routing alternatives, then the paging caveat — a sensible order with no filler. Slightly dense and the 'never look across Spaces and never create Personal' clause reads tersely, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers scoping defaults, cross-Space prohibitions, sibling alternatives, and the pagination edge case — everything needed to call a filtered list tool correctly.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already carries rich detail on regex and cursor. The description still adds meaning the schema can't: space_id's default (Personal) and the rule that a shared-Space entry requires it, plus that next_cursor is the paging key. It doesn't say what limit counts against, though the regex field description does.

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+resource+scope: paging through reusable skills saved in one private Space. It explicitly distinguishes itself from knowledge_search (Community skills) and skill_get (opening one), so an agent can route 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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: reads Personal Space by default, requires space_id for entries in a shared Space, never looks across Spaces, never creates Personal, and names two alternatives (knowledge_search for Community, skill_get to open one). The only missing piece is what to do if a skill isn't in any Space.

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