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

Annotations already cover read-only safety; the description adds real workflow context — the list→run_playbook→verify_task sequence and the prohibition on invoke_tool. It does not cover filtering behavior or result shape, but it exceeds baseline for an annotated tool.

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?

Terse and front-loaded — purpose first, then routing constraints. Dense but each clause carries routing information; the 'Primary jobs' list is cryptic without further context.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety, but the undocumented `category` parameter leaves a real gap for a listing tool.

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 `category` parameter has zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what values it accepts. With 0% coverage the description should compensate but adds nothing here.

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+resource ('List skill playbooks') and names the sibling it routes to (run_playbook) plus the follow-up (verify_task). It distinguishes itself from run_playbook and invoke_tool, though 'skill playbooks' is somewhat jargon-heavy and load_skill isn't addressed.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer run_playbook(skillId) immediately and to call verify_task after a run, and gives a hard exclusion ('do not invoke_tool'). Clear routing, but it never says when to use list_skills itself versus load_skill.

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