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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the result set spans both personal and team skills, each row includes version and a one-line description, and a long catalog is paged. It stops short of stating page size or ordering, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: what is listed, how it differs from the read-one sibling, then pagination — the most decision-relevant information first. No filler or repeated annotation text.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies everything the agent needs: scope of results, per-row contents, the paging loop, and the sibling distinction. Return shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional offset parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'pass nextOffset as offset' restates the schema's own wording rather than adding syntax, defaults, or an example. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('List the skills') plus scope (personal operator skills and team skills) and what each entry carries (one-line description, current version). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling skill_get ('skill_get reads one'), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool skill_get and the condition that selects it (one skill vs. the catalog), and adds the pagination rule for long catalogs ('pass nextOffset as offset'). Nothing about when to use this versus its sibling is left to inference.

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