search_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are 'ranked matches,' which is a genuine behavioral trait, and that they are intended for chaining. However, it doesn't describe ranking criteria, return shape, or absence of side effects, leaving the agent to infer the read-only nature of a search.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second states the output and intended use. The main idea is front-loaded with no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter search tool this is adequate, but not complete. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, and because there is no output schema, the agent only learns that matches are 'ranked' without knowing what fields the matches will contain.

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 input schema covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that the query matches against 'names and descriptions,' which the schema's 'keywords describing the capability needed' does not specify. Limit semantics are fully covered by 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('skills catalog'), and specifies the search scope ('names and descriptions'), making it clear this is a keyword-based search rather than a list-all or get-by-ID operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_skills or get_skill, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

The phrase 'by keywords' and 'for chaining' implies this is the tool to use when a capability is described in words and the result will feed into further tool calls. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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