skill.search

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description's 'Search' verb, so there is no contradiction. The description adds useful context about what is searched ('name, category, and description') and the scope ('installed server-side'), but it does not describe matching behavior, ordering, pagination, or return format. The annotation already covers the safety profile, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient and easy to parse, though some useful details about parameters and behavior were omitted in favor of brevity.

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 no output schema, minimal annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden for understanding the tool. It leaves the return payload undefined, does not explain 'source_id', and provides no guidance on how 'limit' affects results, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' matches against name, category, and description, but it says nothing about the optional 'limit' or 'source_id' parameters. Those parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('installed server-side skills'), and the search dimensions ('name, category, and description'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the closely related skill.list or skill.read siblings, so it falls short of a 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 description implies usage when an agent needs to find installed skills by text-based fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over skill.list or skill.read, nor does it provide exclusions. The 'installed server-side' scoping adds some context, but no when-not guidance is given.

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