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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does: passing `name` returns the full skill; omitting `name` lists the catalog with descriptions. It also clarifies that `name` takes values from the server's catalog rather than arbitrary paths. A small gap is not describing the response format of the listing, but annotations lower the burden and the behavior is otherwise clear.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, when to call, how to pass parameters, what omission does, and a critical disambiguation from the dashboard. It is front-loaded with the most important usage guidance and contains no filler or repetition.

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 simple, optional-parameter meta-tool with strong annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. An agent knows when to call, what to pass, what happens when it omits the parameter, and what the tool is not. No further information is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents `name` at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning beyond it by enumerating the valid values (`search-modem`, `agent-runs`, `write-tools`) and by explicitly stating the omission behavior. This transforms an optional string parameter into a well-understood selector and effectively substitutes for a missing enum.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('skills that teach you how to use THIS Modem MCP server's tools') and the exact actions: call to list or retrieve a skill. It distinguishes itself from the dashboard Settings page and from a generic skills reference, and the explicit skill-name examples leave no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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?

It states exactly when to invoke the tool: before the first search_modem, modem_agent_invoke, or write-tool call, or whenever unsure which Modem tool to use. It also provides an exclusion ('This is not the Skills page in dashboard settings'), preventing a common confusion. This is explicit, actionable guidance with no inference required.

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