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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that attributes are verbatim and sketches the return grouping, but says nothing about pagination limits beyond the schema or about failure modes for a nonexistent skill.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: resource, usage, inputs, outputs. Slightly odd ordering (output described before inputs are fully explained), but no 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?

With an output schema present the return-shape sentence is partly redundant, yet the description still covers input forms, grouping semantics and the level/evidence join path. Adequate for a read-only graph query; only the absence of routing guidance keeps it from 5.

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%, including defaults, clamping and cursor semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description merely restates the parameter names ('Input: skill... optional limit, cursor'), adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieval: 'every edge into one skill, grouped by the type of the page that drew it', which is a concrete verb+resource and scope. It doesn't name or contrast against any sibling (list_references, describe_relations), so it falls short of the 5 benchmark for sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use to check a claimed skill against its evidence' gives an implied use case but no when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the many list_*/describe_* siblings. The agent can infer intent but must guess at boundaries.

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