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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by stating it 'does not expose drafts or private/internal data' and aligns with the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds essential constraints and output description. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (identifiers and metadata for discovery) and what it excludes (drafts/private), leaving no ambiguities.

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?

The only parameter (entity_type) is described in the description as optional and listing possible enum values, adding meaning that the schema (which lacks descriptions) does not provide. Could specify default behavior when omitted, but overall adequate.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists public SkinKnowledgeBase entities, specifying the resource and action. The description distinguishes it from siblings by noting it returns published MCP-eligible identifiers and metadata for discovery, and explicitly excludes private/draft data.

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?

Provides context for use (discovery of public entities) and notes that it does not expose private data, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_entities or search_questions to guide agent choice.

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