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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what skillfiles represent (behavioral guidance for tests, PRs, linting, review, CI/CD), but discloses nothing about search behavior such as ranking, result limits, or whether empty query returns everything.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a compact definition of the resource. No filler; the em-dash clause is dense but earns its place by explaining the domain.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to cover usage and search semantics — yet it omits when to pick this over search_corpus and how the two optional filters interact. Adequate but with a real informational gap for an agent choosing among many search tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; 'by query or persona' at least maps the two params to their roles and implies they are alternative retrieval keys. It does not say whether they can be combined, what persona values look like, or what an empty string does, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 for relevant skillfiles') and adds a definition of what skillfiles are, which distinguishes the resource from the sibling corpus tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with search_corpus, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'by query or persona' hints at two retrieval modes, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus search_corpus or corpus_item, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens when both parameters are empty (both default to ''). The agent is left to infer selection criteria.

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