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 needs no restating. The description usefully adds provenance (public GitHub repos) and hints at the data returned, but discloses nothing about ranking, pagination, limits, or how results are ordered, so it adds only moderate context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, applicable agents, data source, and returned fields without filler. It is slightly run-on with the colon-appended field list, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does partly compensate by listing the returned fields (coverage, skill count, stars, AgentGid install page). However, the meaning of 'limit', result ordering, and any guidance on narrowing an over-broad query are missing, leaving gaps for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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%: 'query' has an in-schema description with examples, but 'limit' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description text adds no parameter meaning at all, not even how query terms are matched, so it fails to compensate 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (Agent Skills packs / SKILL.md for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and similar agents) and the scope (public GitHub repos), so an agent understands what domain this covers versus find_apis, find_tools, or find_assets. It never states the verb explicitly (search/find), relying on the name and the presence of a 'query' parameter to imply retrieval, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling find_* tools as alternatives. The only steering is the implicit 'query' example, which is generic rather than an explicit routing rule.

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