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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a critical side effect: each call publishes the query publicly and returns a short-lived, thread-scoped append key. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or result format, but the key behavioral trait is explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical side effect, then a warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the crucial public-publishing side effect and the return value, which are essential. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, it should also explain the parameters (especially 'limit') and provide more context on using the returned key.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide any format/details for 'query' beyond the implicit name.

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: 'Search public Vectle skills.' It clearly conveys the action but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_skill or resolve_post.

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?

Includes a caution ('Review the query before calling') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_skill or resolve_post. The warning is about input safety, not tool selection.

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