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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the shape of returned data and the explicit '[무료]' (free) tag, which tells the agent there is no cost to calling it. It does not cover pagination behavior despite a cursor param.

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 purpose then return shape then sort, ending with the cost tag. Efficient, with only minor overlap between the sort sentence and the schema's sort description.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (name, summary, category, price, usage bracket, likes, rating) and flags the tool as free. Given the fully documented 5-param schema, this is close to complete; only pagination/cursor behavior is unaddressed.

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% and both enums are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the sort choices without adding syntax or default details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (search Skills) and scopes it to a task the user wants to accomplish, plus enumerates what the results contain. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_skill or run_skill, though it does not name them.

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?

Implies usage via '하려는 작업에 맞는 Skill 을 검색합니다' but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and no reference to the alternative siblings (get_skill, quote_skill) that an agent must choose between.

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