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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's contribution is limited to 'Returns matching guide names', a useful return-value hint given there is no output schema, but it omits result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action and the return value are front-loaded so an agent can decide in one read.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it searches and what it returns, which is the key missing structure. It is close to complete, lacking only detail on result count or next-step routing (e.g., get_skill).

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 'query' parameter is documented as 'Search keywords', so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only the mild framing of matching against 'topic', not syntax, tokenization, or matching rules.

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 (Offline Protocol integration guides, glossed as 'skills') scoped 'by topic', which separates it from get_skill and list_skills by behavior. It never explicitly names a sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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 phrase 'by topic' implies keyword-driven lookup when the exact skill name is unknown, which contrasts with list_skills or get_skill. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no guidance on what to do if no match is returned.

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