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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: 'Rule-based static check: no LLM, nothing is executed' and 'Evidence is untrusted text from the repository.' It also enumerates the return payload (SPDX license, commercial_use semantics, risk flags with file/line, verdict), which is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and input, then output, then the execution-safety caveat. Despite being dense, every clause carries information (accepted inputs, return fields, static-check semantics) with no filler.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (license, commercial_use, risk flags with location, last push, stars, verdict). Combined with the input-format guidance and the untrusted-evidence warning, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the schema by enumerating the accepted URL forms (SKILL.md file, skill folder, repository, or raw.githubusercontent.com file URL), clarifying the 'url' parameter beyond the schema's example. The 'lang' parameter is left to the 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 and resource ('License and risk report for an agent skill on GitHub') plus the scope of what it reports. An agent immediately knows this is a pre-installation static audit, not a general GitHub lookup.

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 'before the user installs it' clearly establishes the trigger context, and the input guidance ('Give a github.com URL of a SKILL.md file, a skill folder or a repository') tells the agent what to supply. It does not name explicit when-not conditions, but no sibling tool overlaps this purpose, so the omission is minor.

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