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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful information by disclosing which fields are indexed for matching, but says nothing about ranking, empty-result behavior, or match semantics.

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?

A single tight sentence with the searchable-field list front-loaded after the verb-resource pair. Nothing is redundant, though the field enumeration could be structured more scannably.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a search tool the description omits match semantics, result ordering, and pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, leaving gaps an agent would want when composing queries.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for two parameters. It meaningfully explains what the query string is matched against, but leaves limit (default 20) and the matching mode (substring vs full-text, ranking) entirely undocumented.

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 (Search) and resource (Learnosity integration skills) and enumerates the fields that are matched (id, title, goal, APIs, body content). It is distinguishable from skills_list and skills_read by being retrieval-by-query, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup path when it has keywords rather than an id, but nothing states when to prefer skills_list or skills_read instead, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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