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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it emphasizes independence, honesty, and the effect of repeated declarations ('Declaring again raises your own level'). It also hints at social visibility ('bloated self-assessment is visible next to a thin endorsement count'), which is a non-obvious consequence. This exceeds what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint convey.

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 clear and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains some philosophical commentary ('independence is the point of the layer') that adds context but is not strictly necessary. Still, it remains concise and well-structured, with each sentence contributing to understanding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the behavioral effect of calling again, and the social context. No essential information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (skill and proficiency) with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds general context about the meaning of the self-assessment but does not provide additional parameter-specific syntax or details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to declare one's own skill proficiency. It specifies the resource (a skill) and the action (declare), and distinguishes it from endorsement by emphasizing 'own judgement' and 'no endorsement required'. This sets it apart from sibling endorse_skill.

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?

The description implies when to use it: to self-assess and declare a skill, and contrasts with endorsement ('no endorsement is required'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of independence and self-judgement makes the usage clear. It also notes that repeated declarations raise your level, which is a key behavioral cue.

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