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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds real value by enumerating the returned fields, including the connection-status flag for the current user, which tells the agent it can detect missing service connections before acting; pagination and result limits are not addressed.

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 purpose and ending with the follow-up action. The mid-sentence field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; only minor tightening would improve it.

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 a single optional parameter, readOnly annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, what comes back, and how to proceed. Only result-count or pagination behavior is left unstated, a small gap for a catalogue search.

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 the schema already explains that query matches titles, situations, outcomes and tool names, and that omitting it lists everything. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or result-shaping detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the published skill catalogue") and defines what a skill is ("routines that tell an assistant what to do with the user's connected accounts and in what order"). This clearly separates it from skills_get, which loads a single skill by slug.

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 closing sentence gives an explicit next step and alternative: "Call skills_get with a slug to load one into this session," so the search-then-load workflow is unambiguous. It stops short of saying when not to search (e.g., when the slug is already known), which keeps it from a 5.

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