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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context that the index spans multiple agent platforms and that matching is keyword-based, but says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or how limit interacts with total matches.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical definition of Agent Skills is the one piece of added information and it earns its place by disambiguating the resource.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, annotations carry the safety burden, but the description leaves matching behavior, limit semantics, and any sense of result shape unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 0% for both parameters. The description only implies that 'query' is a keyword string; it never explains matching semantics (substring, fuzzy, case sensitivity) nor what 'limit' controls (default 5, max 10, which results get dropped). With low coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('Agent Skills'), and even clarifies the resource as SKILL.md folders for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI and others, plus the retrieval mechanism ('by keyword'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_skill (direct lookup vs keyword search), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'by keyword' hints at the search mode, but nothing tells the agent to prefer this over get_skill for discovery versus retrieval, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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