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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output format (slugs/IDs, URLs) and input constraints (limit 1-25), providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 front-load critical information: purpose, required/optional inputs, and output description. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown), the description appropriately omits return value details but provides slug/ID/URL hints. Inputs are well-covered, though cursor explanation is minimal. Sibling context aids tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing the query as required, explaining the type enum and limit range, and mentioning cursor. However, it does not fully explain cursor semantics (e.g., pagination usage), leaving a minor gap.

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 clearly states it searches public SkinKnowledgeBase entities, lists all inputs (required query, optional type, limit, cursor), and describes the output (matching entities with slugs/IDs and canonical URLs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_entity or search_questions by being a general multi-type search.

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?

It explicitly specifies required and optional inputs, implying usage for broad entity search. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tool list (e.g., get_entity, search_questions) provides enough context for the agent to infer alternatives.

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