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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: matching is pattern-based and graded by the scanner rather than an authoritative verdict. It omits auth requirements, pagination, result limits, and whether the index is stale or live.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler, with the tool's action and its key interpretive caveat front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 search tool with 0% parameter documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: query semantics, result format, ordering, and limits. An agent knows roughly what the tool does but not how to call it correctly or what comes back.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It names the four grade values, which merely restates the level enum, and says nothing about what q matches against, how matching behaves (substring/prefix/token), or what the default result set looks like.

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 ("Search the skill index") and characterizes the indexed content as public skills graded by the scanner. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like ronin_scan or ronin_listings, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many ronin_* siblings, and no prerequisites. "A pattern match, not a verdict" is a caveat about interpreting results, not guidance on when to select this tool.

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