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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the result payload (name, description, category, source repo, install command, proof existence), which is real return-format information. However it says nothing about ranking/relevance ordering, the limit cap, or read-only safety, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded before the return summary. 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 output schema, the description correctly explains the return fields and the tool is simple (3 params, 1 required). But the absence of any usage guidance or selection criteria against four sibling tools leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 67% and the description contributes essentially nothing about the three parameters, adding no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema. 'For a task' loosely frames the query parameter but adds no real meaning, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find agent skills') plus the scoping condition ('for a task'), and enumerates what it returns, which helps separate it from the single-item sibling get_skill. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with get_skill/list_proven, so it falls short of a 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives (get_skill, get_proof, list_proven). 'For a task' merely restates the purpose rather than telling the agent which tool to pick in which situation.

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