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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those fields: what the return contains, the non-billable cost profile, and how to escalate to tool_search for detailed guidance.

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?

The definition is front-loaded, then moves to return shape, then to usage and follow-up. Each sentence adds distinct value; the parenthetical examples are compact enough to aid recognition without dominating.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the bundles are, what listing returns, when to use it, and how to get more detail via tool_search.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully described, and the description correctly spends no space on nonexistent inputs.

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?

The description states a specific resource (skill bundles), defines what they are, and names the exact return content. It also distinguishes this discovery tool from tool_search by explaining the different role each plays.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: when unsure which tools fit a request. It also names tool_search as the follow-up path for full guidance and definitions, so the agent knows both the trigger and the alternative.

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