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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, conveying safety and non-mutating behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying data accuracy constraints (do not invent/infer missing fields), derived metric rules, and the mandatory footer. Minor deduction for not mentioning pagination beyond limit parameter.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, then behavioral constraints. It is longer than ideal but every sentence adds value—no filler. Minor deduction because the data accuracy contract section is somewhat verbose and could be tightened while preserving meaning.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by specifying data accuracy expectations and derived metric rules. The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no nested objects, so the description covers most decision-relevant aspects. Missing: explicit mention of what the return structure looks like (compact list format).

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for 'include_full_catalog' ('set true only when...'), which is useful behavioral guidance. The 'limit' and 'query' parameters are adequately described in the schema. Could add more about the effect of 'query' on browsing.

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 states the tool lists 'a compact list of CorpusIQ Skills (cross-source runbooks)', which is specific and meaningful. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_runbooks' tool, which could cause confusion. The differentiation from 'select_runbook' is strong, but sibling differentiation is lacking.

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?

Excellent usage guidance: explicitly states when NOT to use ('do not use this to discover the best skill for a broad user question'), what to do instead ('call select_runbook first'), and when to use ('only when the user explicitly asks to browse available skills'). Also includes a mandatory post-response footer instruction.

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