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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description goes beyond them usefully by naming the return payload (slug, output type, free or Pro, page URL), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss ranking, empty-result behavior, or how strictly query is matched.

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 sentences, no filler, purpose front-loaded and the return shape second. The example queries are the highest-value content and appear immediately.

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 4-parameter search with overlapping siblings and no output schema, the description covers intent and return fields adequately. Missing is any routing cue against list_video_skills/get_skill or indication of what happens when nothing matches.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by giving representative query strings ("product launch video", "og image"), which clarify the phrase-level, plain-language nature of the query field better than the schema's "What the user wants to make, in plain words."

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 Lookbk agent skills") plus the domain of use ("something the user wants to make"), and concrete query examples anchor what a skill is. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer how it differs from list_video_skills or get_skill.

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?

The examples imply when to reach for this tool (the user describes a desired artifact), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs list_video_skills, nor when to follow up with get_skill or get_install_command. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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