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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm, including weighted scoring and AI-evaluated relevance, and states the output format ('Returns scored list sorted by total'). It does not explicitly mention being read-only, but the search/score nature implies no side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently packs scoring dimensions, weights, usage, and output into minimal text. Every sentence provides actionable information without waste.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, scoring logic, and output type concisely. Since there is no output schema, it explains the return as a 'scored list sorted by total' but could be more explicit about the structure of each scored item; still, it is adequate for the agent's selection and invocation.

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% and both 'query' and 'limit' already have clear descriptions. The description adds little beyond aligning 'Given a topic' with the query parameter; it does not enrich parameter meaning further.

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 states a specific verb ('searches skills and scores each') on a specific resource (skills) and details six scoring dimensions with weights. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_skills and evaluate_skill by emphasizing ranking behavior and the sorted output.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when you want to see how well skills rank for a task,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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