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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain meaning by defining what a proof is — the same brief built with and without the skill as two live pages — which helps the agent interpret results, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or size.

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 compact sentence with the scoping qualifier front-loaded and no wasted words. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence with a verb, which slightly weakens the lead, but nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should say roughly what comes back (skill names, ids, links to the two proof pages). It explains the concept behind 'proof' but leaves the result shape entirely unspecified.

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, and the empty schema is fully documented, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 the resource precisely (skills having a published proof) and scopes it with 'published', so an agent knows it is a filtered listing rather than all skills. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', and it does not name the sibling it differs from (search_skills, get_proof), so it falls just short of 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_skills (broader lookup) or get_proof (retrieve one proof). The only signal is the implicit 'only proven skills', leaving the agent to infer the selection condition.

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