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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: it requires a connected Valet account, and it discloses a listing omission rule (built-in skills absent until the org makes its own). It does not mention pagination or result limits.

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 and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with routing, auth, and omission caveats following in logical order. Five sentences is slightly long and 'Each row says its access mode' is mildly redundant with the opening field list, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (kind, URL, access mode, last published) and states the auth prerequisite and the sibling boundary. That is everything an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 schema fully documents both kind (with enum) and org_name including the default org behavior. The description's 'Pass kind to narrow to one kind' only restates the schema, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond it.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and an exhaustive resource list ('every website, app, agent, and skill') and states the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_skills by explaining that built-in skills are excluded until the org creates its own, so an agent can tell the two list tools apart.

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 a concrete when-to-use rule ('the first read when the user names something and you do not know what it is') plus a recovery scenario for names lost from conversation. It also names the alternative (list_skills) and the condition that selects it.

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