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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that include=['content'] inlines bodies, which is a behavioral trait, but doesn't describe side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return format. For a read-only search tool, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is very concise, consisting of four short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then gives filter guidance and an alternative. The first two sentences ('Agent Skills across the catalog. Packaged agent skills.') are slightly redundant but not wordy. Overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential search behavior and the key include option, but omits explanations of match (any/all), pagination semantics, and what the default response contains beyond the content inlining. It is usable but leaves some gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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 low (38%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for q, tags, providers, and include by stating they are filters and that include inlines bodies. However, it doesn't cover match, context, page, or limit, leaving the agent to infer those from names or schema. It improves understanding but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 ('Agent Skills') and the operation (find/retrieve across the catalog). It goes beyond a tautology and distinguishes itself from the sibling find_artifacts, making its scope unambiguous. The 'Packaged agent skills' phrasing reinforces the resource type.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search,' providing a clear when-not condition. The description also implies when to use this tool (when searching specifically for agent skills). This is direct, actionable guidance with an explicit alternative.

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