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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the hybrid keyword/category match, semantic search when configured, and that tags are folded into the same keyword search as query with no dedicated tags field. This gives agents useful behavioral nuance, though it omits output shape and price filter behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adding only relevant behavioral detail. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the search and matching behavior but leaves gaps: how results are returned, whether pagination exists, and exactly how max_price_sats filters. It is adequate for choosing the tool but not fully self-sufficient.

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 50%, so the description must partially compensate. It does clarify tags semantics and mentions category matching, but max_price_sats is left completely unexplained. This is a partial compensation, not a complete one.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('Agentix skill catalog by capability'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_skill, purchase_skill, and submit_skill by describing catalog search rather than retrieval, purchase, or submission.

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 description implies the tool is for finding skills by capability, so a natural use case is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_skill, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative routing.

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