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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no default result count, no ordering, no matching semantics - which is acceptable but not additive given the 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than being a deliberate tightening of a richer statement.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description leaves important gaps: the limit parameter is undocumented anywhere, and there is no indication of result shape, ranking, or how the three filters combine (AND vs OR). For a search tool with zero required parameters, more behavioral guidance is needed.

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 75% (q, tag, kind described; limit undocumented). The description merely restates three of those parameters as the searchable facets, adding no filtering semantics, matching rules, or clarification of what 'kind' values are valid.

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 clear verb (search) and resource (skills library) and names the searchable facets (text, tag, kind), which maps to the parameters. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_lessons, search_agents, or get_skill, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention the siblings it overlaps with (get_skill for direct lookup, search_lessons for the lesson corpus) nor any prerequisite or fallback behavior when a search returns nothing.

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