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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavior by noting that empty arguments return the newest skills and that each result includes an install_prompt intended to be spoken or followed.

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 short sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads what the tool returns and follows with the two most important behavioral details: default ordering and install_prompt usage.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It is nearly complete for a finder tool, but it lacks explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools and does not mention any pagination or result-limit 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%, and the schema already documents kind, query, and handle in detail. The description adds only the empty-arguments default ordering, not additional semantics for the individual filter parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as agent skills listed on the market and notes that results include real outputs. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as market_search or market_get_skill, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by explaining that empty arguments return the newest skills, which is a useful default. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of market_search or market_get_skill, nor does it provide exclusions.

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