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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by decoding the status vocabulary (runnable / stub / concluded) and warning that a stub is a promise rather than a capability — a real risk-of-misinterpretation note.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description still tells the agent what the payload contains and how to interpret status values. Only the absence of any ordering or size expectation for the bank listing keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description usefully names the fields the bank returns, which is a small bonus over the empty 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (the Cubicle skill bank) and an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (name, family, grade, status). The scope — the whole bank rather than one entry — cleanly separates it from the sibling skill_read.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to survey the catalogue. The description never names skill_read as the alternative for fetching a single skill, nor states when the bank listing is preferable to reading one entry. The stub caveat is guidance about citing results, not about tool selection.

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