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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: what each disclosure tier returns, and that not_found is returned when the caller has no skills — a non-obvious empty-state behavior rather than an empty list.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then the tier semantics, then the alternative and the empty-state. Every sentence adds information; nothing restates the title or the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and the tier semantics are a genuine addition. However, for a four-parameter list tool the description leaves most parameters uninterpreted and doesn't address pagination or ordering via limit, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for four parameters, but it only explains disclosure_tier. The meaning of limit, query (free-text search? exact match?), and approved_only (presumably filters to approved procedures) is left entirely to inference. One of four parameters documented is a substantial gap for a low-coverage schema.

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 ("List your active Dactic skills") and immediately defines what a skill is ("procedures derived from your interviews"), which resolves an otherwise ambiguous domain term. It also names the sibling get_skill as the single-item counterpart, so an agent can separate the two 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?

Explicitly routes single-skill lookups to get_skill, which is the main branching decision an agent faces. It also explains the tier trade-off (L1 catalog vs L2/L3 with procedure), which functions as usage guidance. It stops short of saying when to raise the tier or when to combine with query/approved_only filters.

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