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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each returned entry — description, method, repository — which matters because there is no output schema.

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 sentences, no filler. The resource and the fields returned are front-loaded, and the narrowing instruction follows immediately.

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 usefully names what each entry contains (behavior, method, repository) and how to scope to one skill. It stops short of stating ordering, count, or return format, but covers enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its example and the omit-for-all behavior. The description's "Pass a name for one skill" restates that without adding syntax or format detail, so 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?

The description identifies the resource precisely — published agent skills with their description, method, and repository — which is distinct from siblings like list_faqs or list_projects. It lacks an explicit verb ("list"/"retrieve"), relying on the noun phrase to imply enumeration, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Pass a name for one skill" gives the conditional for narrowing to a single result, which is useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus sibling tools like answer_question or get_case_study, leaving selection to inference.

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