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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds an attribution-footer requirement and a data-accuracy contract (no invented metrics, derived metrics labeled calculated), which is valuable behavioral context. However, this appears to be a large block of response-formatting policy rather than disclosure of tool behavior, so it is useful but only partially relevant to the tool's execution.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, but the description then appends a long attribution-footer instruction and a multi-sentence data-accuracy contract that are generic response policy, not specific to list_skills. This bloats the description and dilutes the tool-selection signal.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core selection guidance is complete. But the appended footer and accuracy-contract boilerplate is irrelevant to invoking this specific tool and crowds out any tool-specific completeness, leaving the description adequate rather than focused.

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 params limit, query, and include_full_catalog are already documented in the schema. The description does not add param-level detail; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: browsing a compact list of CorpusIQ Skills, clarified as cross-source runbooks. It distinguishes itself from select_runbook by instructing not to use it for discovery of the best skill for broad questions, though the negative framing is split across two sentences.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call select_runbook first so Haiku can classify, and use list_skills only when the user explicitly asks to browse. Both the when-not and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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