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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable facts: results are metadata-only (names and descriptions, not content), and it requires a connected Valet account. It does not discuss result size or pagination, but the added auth and payload-scope context is substantive.

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 well, but the description runs long and includes motivational filler ("this is how an organization's own standards reach you without anyone naming them") that does not help an agent invoke the tool. The core facts could be conveyed in two sentences instead of five.

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, the description correctly characterizes the return shape (rows of names plus descriptions) and states the account prerequisite. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the sole parameter, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly, though it does not say what an empty result means or how many skills to expect.

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 org_name parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the omit-to-use-default behavior). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 ("List every skill the organization has") and immediately delimits scope: well-known names plus org-written/catalog-installed skills. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_skill by noting it returns names and descriptions only while get_skill reads content, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 triggering condition (the governance skill directs you to call this and read every skill whose description applies to the work at hand) and names the alternative for content (get_skill). There is no explicit "when not to use" clause, but the read-vs-fetch-content split is a clear routing rule.

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