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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: content is served from skill files bundled at build time and matches mzizi-dev/agent-tools at the deployed commit, telling the agent the data is static, pinned and not fetched live.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and mode, with the provenance note second. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns (a list or one full skill) and that the content is build-time pinned. A brief note on return shape or size would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential is 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 the single parameter already documents 'Skill name. Omit to list all.' The description's 'or fetch one in full' adds a little framing but essentially restates the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 the dual list/fetch mode is explicit. It is readily distinguishable from sibling get_* tools like mzizi_get_doctrine or mzizi_get_architecture by resource, and the name parameter's effect is stated up front.

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?

'Skills are what an agent loads first' gives a clear contextual cue for when this tool is the right one to reach for, and the description conveys both operating modes (list vs. fetch). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it does not reach a 5.

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