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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the fact of searching. It does not say whether results are ranked, how limit/pagination behaves, or what a result contains, all of which an agent needs for a search call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is tight, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the missing usage and behavior context.

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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented limit parameter, the definition is too thin. It omits result format, pagination, ranking, and any routing against the many sibling search/lookup tools.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents q, tag, and kind (albeit tersely). The description maps these to 'text, tag or kind', adding marginal value, but ignores the limit parameter entirely, which the schema also leaves bare.

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 (Search) and resource (skills library) and names the three search dimensions (text, tag, kind). It clearly differs from get_skill or publish_skill, but never names those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_skill (for a specific skill), use_skill, or the parallel search_lessons/search_agents tools. The agent is left to infer that this is the bulk retrieval tool versus single-item lookups.

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