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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real behavioral fact beyond the schema: only published, reviewed cards are returned, implying a read-only, curated result set. However, it says nothing about matching semantics, ranking, empty-result behavior, or result volume, which matters for a search endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The result-scope note is appended efficiently. Slightly more could be said usefully, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

A search tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema leaves the agent guessing at return shape (what fields a card has), pagination beyond 'limit', and the language behavior. The description covers intent but not enough of the operational surface.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. The required 'query' (2–120 chars), the 'limit' cap of 20, and especially 'lang' defaulting to 'ru' go entirely unexplained — an agent could easily search in the wrong language without noticing the default.

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 plus a concrete resource domain: search the SkillFoxx catalog of skills, MCP servers and CLI tools. An agent knows immediately what the tool fetches. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_entry or list_categories, so it stops 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer search_entries over recommend_for_project or list_categories when it just needs to find an item. The 'published, reviewed only' clause is a result-scope statement, not routing guidance.

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