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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each entry carries 'a name and when to use it,' which helps the agent decide whether to call cvl_skill_read next, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or pagination, and an output schema already documents the return shape.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ending with the actionable next step. Every clause carries weight: what skills are, examples of what they cover, what each entry contains, and which sibling opens one.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema covering return values, and full schema coverage for the single parameter, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, which it does. A note that this is the entry point for skill discovery before any cvl_skill_read call would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and the single optional 'fields' parameter is documented in the schema as projecting top-level envelope keys. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (the Convertlyft skills) with a concrete characterization: 'step-by-step playbooks for jobs like spotting where people get stuck, fixing errors, auditing SEO or diagnosing a drop.' This makes clear it enumerates playbooks rather than executing them, and the final clause separates it from cvl_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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'cvl_skill_read opens one,' establishing this as the discovery step before reading. It doesn't state when to prefer this over cvl_search_tools or cvl_docs_search for finding guidance, so the alternative-selection guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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