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 discloses the output structure (top 10 results with source, name, snippet, relevance score) and the scope of search (SKILL.md files and local docs). However, it does not mention any potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error behavior), which is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the use case. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 explains the return format clearly. It covers the search scope, the use cases, and the output details. It does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., no results), but for a simple two-parameter search tool, this is fairly complete. The default for topic is implied in the schema, so that is covered.

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%, so both parameters (query and topic) are already documented. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting or topic usage specifics. It only mentions the search context generally, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 the tool searches Huawei Cloud SKILL.md files and local documentation, with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the return format (top 10 results with source, name, snippet, relevance score), and the use case helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_marketplace.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the agent needs to discover which skill covers a topic, or when uncertain about API parameters, quotas, or limitations.' It gives clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would make it more complete.

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