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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only listing operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior, result ordering effects, or what a page beyond the last one returns. The single market-description sentence adds branding context but little behavioral disclosure.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the capabilities. The em-dash clause about community-built skills is slightly promotional but still informative; nothing is padded.

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 five-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool is and which filters exist, but omits return shape (a paginated skill list) and total/pagination semantics, which an agent calling it repeatedly would want. Adequate but with clear remaining gaps.

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% — page, limit, sort, search, and category all carry their own descriptions with defaults and accepted values. The description echoes category/search/sort but adds no format or interaction detail (e.g. whether filters combine, or how sort interacts with search), 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?

Specific verb ('Browse') plus a named resource ('WattCoin's Skills Marketplace — community-built automation skills for WattOS'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like skill_detail or rate_skill, which also operate on marketplace skills.

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?

The phrase 'Filter by category, search, sort' implies the tool's role as a discovery/listing endpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of skill_detail as the follow-up for inspecting a single skill. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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