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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content ("the method to follow" and which skills have a runnable engine), which is useful, but says nothing about safety profile, auth, or result-count behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, and examples placed inline. Slightly dense but no wasted filler.

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?

No output schema, so the description must describe returns; it does so briefly. For a discovery tool with full param coverage, this is adequate but leaves return format and result ordering implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query as "the problem, in plain words", limit as max results). The examples illustrate query phrasing but add little beyond the schema's own wording; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Find AAJ marketing skills") with a clear scoping mechanism ("by the problem they solve") and three concrete example queries. It's easy to distinguish from list_engines/run_engine, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 example problem-phrasings ("churn is rising", "we're launching next month") strongly imply when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as get_skill for retrieving a known skill.

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