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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: a 50-row cap with total counting the remainder, and that every returned url carries utm_source=mcp and utm_medium=tool — details an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core search behavior front-loaded before result-shape and pagination details. No filler.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (name, slug, type, category, summary, url) and the truncation behavior (50 rows plus a total). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 0% and has no enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: query is defined as a case-insensitive substring (max 200), category as an optional slug, and type's allowed values (skill, mcp, rules, docs, sdk) are enumerated only here. It stops short of explaining how category/type interact or the matching behavior for those filters.

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 (Search) and resource (public SwiftSkills catalog), and the parameter list clarifies the search surface. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_entry or list_new, but 'search' vs 'get'/'list' is reasonably self-distinguishing.

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 description implies usage (keyword search with optional category/type filters) but never states when to choose this over get_entry for a known item or list_new for recency. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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