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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the fallback to a 'bundled .18 catalogue' that is 'explicitly marked bundled-offline' and 'never certified as current', disclosing degraded-mode behavior and result provenance an agent would not otherwise know.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the fallback caveat, then the workflow pointer. Dense but largely waste-free; the '.18 catalogue' phrasing is slightly obscure but not padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers pricing intent ('free'), result provenance (certified vs bundled-offline), and a cross-tool workflow pointer, which is more than most read-only searches provide. Only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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 all five parameters (need, task, limit, query, offset) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics, so the 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 ('Search current Soclo guides and recipes') and the qualifying detail that results are 'free' and use live certified guide identities. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like soclo_skills_get, soclo_skills_playbook, or soclo_skills_playbooks, which the agent must infer from name alone.

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?

The mention of 'Start host planning with soclo_host_plan prepare; retain its returned catalogue version' gives workflow context, but it describes a downstream step rather than when to choose this search over the other skills tools. No explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance against soclo_skills_playbook(s).

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