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

Annotations already mark this read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns a structured list of skill metadata and explicitly routes installation to recipe_install(id), signaling the tool itself does not install anything.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, includes concrete examples without padding, and ends with the return format and next-step action. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

For a simple read-only discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is browsed, why a user would do so, what fields come back, and what to do next. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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?

The single optional parameter category is fully documented in the schema with a clear note that all skills are returned regardless. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 action and resource: 'Browses installable community SKILLS — ready-made LMCP workflows other people published.' It gives concrete examples, names the return shape, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like recipe_install and recipe_list.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: when a user wants a ready-made workflow for a repeatable multi-app task instead of building from scratch. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like recipe_list or recipe_get, but the community-skill framing provides enough context for an agent to choose appropriately.

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