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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful context: the catalog size (35 skills, 8 self-made, 25 MCP servers), the source taxonomy, and that dependency and update-time metadata are returned. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before the source clarification and catalog counts. The inventory numbers are somewhat perishable detail, but they are compact and informative rather than 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?

With no output schema and 50% parameter coverage, the description does well to describe the returned fields (source, dependencies, update time) and the catalog scope. It still leaves the status filter and limit semantics unexplained, which matters for a search tool with four optional parameters.

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 50%. The description reinforces the source enum by explaining that self means a self-made skill installable into WorkBuddy / Claude, which adds meaning beyond the schema's own enum description. It says nothing about limit, status (active/stale/removed), or keyword matching behavior, leaving half the parameters undocumented in prose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves Skill and MCP server entries that can be installed into an agent, and it names the metadata returned (source label, dependencies, update time). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_tools, so an agent must infer the difference from the resource nouns 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for finding installable skills and MCP servers, and the description clarifies that source=self entries can be installed directly into WorkBuddy / Claude. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_tools or get_tool_detail, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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