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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns names and descriptions only (not content), it lists well-known names plus every org-authored or catalog-installed skill, and it requires a connected Valet account. The one repetition about Valet work/governance dilutes slightly but the added context is real.

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?

Action and trigger are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph usefully describes the return rows. However, the 'Valet work or not' clause and the later 'governance skill also tells you to call this before Valet work' sentence repeat the same point, and a stray unmatched quote around 'use the duck skill' is a minor blemish.

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 compensates by explaining row contents (name plus the applicability-sentence description) and the read-vs-list split from get_skill, and it flags the account prerequisite. The only real gap is it says nothing about ordering, volume, or truncation for large skill sets, which matters for a list tool.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the default-org behavior. The description never mentions org_name or the multi-org fallback, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 organization's skills') and immediately defines what a skill is ('playbooks for how it does things'). It also clearly delineates the boundary against get_skill (reads content) and find_skill (keyword search), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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?

Explicit triggers are given: when a task might be covered by org practice, and whenever the user names an unknown skill. It also names the follow-up ('read a matching skill with get_skill before starting') and the alternative ('To search by words from the task instead, call find_skill'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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