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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds genuinely new information that annotations cannot convey: the result payload is a list of slugs rather than full records. It says nothing about empty results, ranking or the 50-result cap, but for a lookup tool this is solid.

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, zero filler. The purpose leads and the follow-up action is second, matching the order an agent needs them.

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, the description correctly compensates by stating what comes back and how to use it. What remains unstated is minor for a search tool: whether results are ranked, what an empty response means, and pagination past the limit cap.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum and the note that category comes from list_categories. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 (search) plus the corpus being searched and the enumerated entry types (skills, prompts, MCP servers, rules). It also names the sibling it feeds into (get_skill), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening either schema.

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 establishes the two-step pattern explicitly: search here, then pass the returned slugs to get_skill. It does not state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a slug is already known), but the positive routing is unambiguous.

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