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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (identifiers and canonical URLs) and the input constraints (pagination via cursor, limit range). It does not repeat annotation information.

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 effectively convey purpose, inputs, and outputs. No extraneous information. The description is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested object), the description adequately covers inputs and output summary. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by listing all parameters: required 'query', optional 'limit' (with min/max), 'cursor', and 'filters' object with four valid fields. This clearly explains their meaning and usage.

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 'published public SkinKnowledgeBase Question pages,' specifying the verb 'search,' the resource 'Question pages,' and the scope 'published public.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_entity' or 'fetch' which are retrieval operations.

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 description provides clear context on required and optional inputs, and mentions the output purpose for follow-up retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like the generic 'search' tool.

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