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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing provenance ('bundled into this server at build time, so they are exactly the text in mzizi-dev/agent-tools at the deployed commit'). That is genuinely useful for trusting the content, though it says nothing about size, truncation, or response shape for large categories.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the follow-on sentences carry real information (category meanings, selection rule, provenance). It loses a point for re-listing the category enum and its members, which the schema already provides verbatim, making the third sentence partially redundant.

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, no required parameters, and a read-only annotation set, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it gets back in each mode and where the content comes from. The one remaining gap is not saying what a bare listing returns (names only?) versus the 'in full' variants.

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 100% and the enum is already enumerated in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by specifying the return semantics of each parameter — category returns 'every skill in it in full' versus name returning 'one skill' — and gives a concrete example (category=dev).

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: 'List the published Mzizi agent skills, or fetch one in full,' and clarifies the domain concept ('Skills are what an agent loads first'). It is unambiguous about what is returned, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool (e.g. mzizi_get_doctrine), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 real usage context: skills are 'what an agent loads first,' and dev-category skills should be loaded 'before any dev work.' It also states the selection rule between the two parameters. What it lacks is any explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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