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

Annotations already establish this as safe, read-only, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context such as 'best match first' and the specific returned fields, but does not disclose deeper operational behavior like result count limits, empty-result handling, or ranking caveats.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, clearly states search dimensions, and lists the useful return fields. There is no filler or redundant repetition 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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this search tool relates to sibling tools such as recommend and trending.

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%, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds little param-specific semantics beyond confirming that the query can be a natural-language task, name, or keyword, which aligns with the query parameter.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('SkillMD registry of Agent Skills'), and the search dimensions (task, name, keywords). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like skillmd_get or skillmd_recommend.

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 description implies that this tool should be used when an agent needs to find matching skills in the registry, and it mentions the returned result fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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