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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: results are truncated to one-line summaries rather than full skill content. It still doesn't say how many skills exist or whether the list can change.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource and closing with the return shape. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description's burden is small, and it does state the enumerated topic domains and the summary-level result. Slightly incomplete in that a reader cannot tell whether the listed names are the exact identifiers expected by swebsy_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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 for a no-argument tool.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (deep-guidance skills), with example topics enumerated and the shape of the result (one-line summaries) stated. It is clearly distinguishable from the many other list_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name swebsy_get_skill as the fetch counterpart.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the obvious sibling swebsy_get_skill or swebsy_get_builder_guide. A discovery-then-fetch flow is only weakly implied by 'available'; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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