Skill search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result cap of 10, the ranking signals (name weighted most, then description, tags, text), and that no match is reported rather than returning an empty list silently.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and the result format, with the ranking rule parenthesized rather than buried. The parenthetical is dense but each clause carries real information; no 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?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to cover purpose, ranking, and workflow placement — all present. The one omission is that it never mentions how the optional category filter narrows results, though the schema covers it adequately.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining how the query string is matched — name matches outrank description, tags, and full text — which is meaning the schema does not convey. It says nothing about the category filter's effect on results.

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 and resource ('Find skills for a task') and immediately specifies the return shape (up to 10 lines 'name — description', best first). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling skill_load, which fetches the chosen skill rather than discovering it.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: 'Call this before specialized work, then skill_load the best match.' That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, so an agent knows both when to use this tool and what to do next.

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