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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real value on top: it enumerates the response fields (cid, site, site_kind real vs demo/mock, params, risk flags, verification and replay counts, how_to_run) and discloses the execution limitation of this HTTP endpoint. It stops short of noting rate limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the equivalence and purpose before the return fields and execution caveat. The opening "Same as find_skill:" is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the shape of the returned records, and the follow-up path to try_skill. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema, including an example and the default/max for limit. The description adds only the general framing that the query describes a task on a website, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — search verified, replayable browser skills for completing a task on a website or web app — and even enumerates the returned fields. It ties itself to the sibling find_skill ("Same as find_skill") but offers no differentiation from other siblings such as search or find_topic.

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 routes the agent away from this tool for execution: "This HTTP endpoint does not offer run_skill; allowlisted skills can be tried with try_skill." The equivalence with find_skill clarifies alternatives, though it never says when topic-level search (find_topic/search) should be preferred over skill search.

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