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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses aggregation/grouping behavior, the shape of results (skill, evidence, page), how profile claims vs evidence rows are represented, and that attributes are returned verbatim. This goes beyond the bare operation, though it doesn't address safety or side effects.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, use case, input, output, and data representation each earn their place in a short paragraph. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and clear pagination semantics already documented in the schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the main use case, result shape, grouping behavior, and data-source semantics; the only minor gap is explaining what 'page' means beyond the output schema.

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 already documents skill, limit, and cursor thoroughly, including clamping and cursor reuse. The description only restates that skill is an id or canonical name and that limit/cursor are optional, 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?

The description states the operation in concrete terms: it returns every edge into one skill, grouped by the page type that drew the edge, and it frames the intended use ('check a claimed skill against its evidence'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like search or fetch, though the domain jargon ('edge', 'page') is not unpacked.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use to check a claimed skill against its evidence.' It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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