List skills in a category

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: pagination behavior, alphabetical ordering, and meaning of the 'members' field. No contradictions.

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 efficiently convey purpose and key details. No redundant phrases. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description adequately explains pagination, ordering, and field meaning. It lacks return structure but the explanation of 'members' field partially compensates. Slightly more detail on response format would improve completeness.

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 documentation covers all 3 parameters (id, page, limit) with clear descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond restating the category context for id. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 it lists skills in a category, specifying they are technician qualifications/certifications, paginated, ordered alphabetically. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listSkills (all skills) and listSkillCategories (categories only).

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 indicates when to use (for a given category) by mentioning 'belonging to the given trade/specialty category'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with listSkills for unfiltered listing, leaving some ambiguity.

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