search_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose useful behavior: the search spans both skill names and descriptions, and accepts free-text intent. It still omits result behavior (ranking, matching semantics, whether it returns full skill content or just references), which matters for a search tool with no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, resource, search scope, method, and purpose with no filler. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive search tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers what it searches and why. It could say more about result shape or how the search differs from browsing tools, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% and the single query parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description restates that it accepts natural language or keywords but adds no format constraints or guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data does the work.

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 gives a specific verb (searches), resource (skills), method (natural language query or keywords), and target (find the right procedure for a task). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_skills and get_skill by emphasizing natural-language search, though it never names them.

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 'to find the right procedure for a task' implies a use case, and 'natural language query or keywords' suggests the input style. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use list_skills/get_skill, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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