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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: hybrid keyword/category matching, optional semantic search, and that tags are folded into the same keyword search as query because the catalog lacks a dedicated tags field. It does not cover result format or auth, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 tight sentences followed by one clarifying caveat about tags. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds only high-value behavioral detail, with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 is sufficient to invoke the tool, but it leaves gaps: max_price_sats is undocumented, the category vocabulary is unspecified, and there is no indication of result shape or ordering. These are not fatal because the tool is a simple search, but a slightly richer description would make it fully complete.

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 50%, with category and max_price_sats lacking descriptions. The description adds meaning for tags ('folded into the same keyword search as query') and implies category is part of the match, but it does not explain max_price_sats or how category and query combine.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Noden skill catalog by capability.' It also clarifies the matching mechanism (hybrid keyword/category, optionally semantic), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_skill, purchase_skill, and submit_skill.

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 intended use is implied by 'Search the Noden skill catalog by capability'—agents should use this when looking for skills by capability. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_skill (e.g., when a skill ID is known) or when not to use this tool.

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