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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: omitting `name` returns a catalog listing, supplying it returns the full skill, and it warns that names are server-catalog entries rather than paths or external skills.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the calling trigger; the catalog values and the disambiguation note follow in descending priority. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, both call modes, and valid values. The only gap is that it never tells the agent how it differs from `modem_docs`, leaving one routing decision to inference.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by enumerating the valid values (`agent-runs`, `write-tools`, `install-feedback`, `automations`), which the schema does not encode as an enum, and by contrasting `name` present vs. omitted behavior.

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: returns skill documents that teach usage of this MCP server's own tools, and explicitly excludes the dashboard Skills page. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `modem_docs`, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives explicit triggers — before the first `modem_agent_invoke` or any write-tool call, or whenever unsure which Modem tool to use — plus a clarifying exclusion of a similarly named non-tool feature. An agent knows both when to call and what mistake this prevents.

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