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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the attribution-footer handling rule and the data-accuracy contract for returned fields. These are largely generic cross-tool boilerplate rather than tool-specific traits, so it falls short of a 5.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the core purpose and routing rule. However, the attribution-footer and data-accuracy paragraphs are lengthy generic contract text that inflates the definition well beyond what this specific tool needs.

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 gives enough of the return shape ('compact list') and output-handling rules to call the tool correctly. It does not describe pagination or returned fields, a minor gap for a list tool.

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 100% and the schema already documents limit, query, and include_full_catalog with defaults and max. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Browse a compact list of CorpusIQ runbooks/skills') and explicitly names the sibling it is not (select_runbook), so an agent can distinguish browsing from routing without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-not ('Do not use this to choose a runbook for a user's broad question') and the correct alternative ('call select_runbook first'), plus the condition under which the full catalog is fetched via include_full_catalog. Routing is unambiguous.

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