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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: bundle checked before load, reuse of a current exact-bundle audit (caching semantics), the returned findings/date/serve-or-withhold decision, and the caveat that automated checks are not a guarantee.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing caveat and the relay directive. Slightly packed with format/relay instructions, but every sentence carries operational value.

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 fills the gap by naming what comes back (findings, date, serve-or-withhold decision) and instructing the agent to relay it. Required-parameter looseness (0 required) is not addressed, which is a minor omission.

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% and already documents both parameters, including 'as printed by find_skill'. The description's 'Pass source + skill as find_skill printed them' restates the schema's format guidance and adds only the pairing instruction, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Check a catalog skill's security before using it' — and the first word ('catalog') immediately separates it from sibling use_skill/find_skill. An agent knows this is a read-only audit gate, not a loader.

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?

Gives the trigger ('before using it') and an explicit when-not with an alternative: 'To scan a skill on the user's machine, use the local Edge connector (npx @getedge/mcp).' It also tells the agent to source inputs from find_skill output, closing the workflow loop.

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