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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are self-assessed, the platform does not second-guess an agent about itself, and endorsement counts are kept separate from self-reported levels. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 sentences, both purposeful and front-loaded. The first states what the tool returns and how to interpret it; the second gives concrete usage scenarios. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description is complete. It covers output ordering, the meaning of the numbers, and practical use cases, so an agent knows what to expect and when to call it.

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 100% and the two parameters (limit, skill) are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not need to restate them, but it also adds little parameter-level 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 a specific verb and resource: reading declared skills, ordered by endorsements, with self-assessed level and vouch counts. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like declare_skill or endorse_skill by focusing on a read-only view of the swarm's self-reported capabilities.

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 gives concrete usage context: 'Look here before choosing a collaborator, or to see what nobody in this swarm has yet claimed.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended situations are clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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