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

With no annotations, this description carries the whole load, and it does disclose the privacy property (no personal data stored) plus the dependency on a token from plan_install. It leaves out failure and retry behavior, such as whether a repeated call double-counts the install or what happens if the token is stale. That omission keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by the precondition and the exclusions. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not say what the call returns or how failures appear. It also leaves most of the required input contract, section/slug/agent/event, undefined, so an agent can follow the timing rules but cannot confidently build the payload from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must explain the five parameters, but it only explains reportToken and where that value comes from. Nothing tells the agent what section, slug, agent, or the add/remove event enum mean, which is a real problem for the four required fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: reporting to SkillFoxx that a catalog tool was installed, framed as keeping the anonymous install counter honest. It also ties itself to the plan_install sibling via reportToken, which helps separate it from search/list tools. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the other siblings, so it falls short of 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?

Preconditions are explicit: call only after the user agreed and the installation finished without errors. Two exclusions are named with their reasons: npx skillfoxx installs (the CLI self-reports) and users who opted out of statistics. An agent knows exactly when to call and when not to.

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