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 reveals that this is a search/filter operation and that tags, category, pricing, and pagination affect results, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free/read-only behavior or what happens when no query is provided.

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 opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact, well-formatted Args list. Every line adds semantic value beyond the bare schema property names, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters and clarifies their meaning. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing when to prefer this over sibling search tools and in not stating pagination/result behavior explicitly, but those are minor gaps given the output schema.

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 Args block must fully compensate, and it does. It explains query as natural language with concrete examples, clarifies category expects a slug, pricing_type limits to 'free' or 'paid', tags are comma-separated, and page/per_page control pagination.

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') and resource ('skills (multi-tool workflows) on invok.it'), immediately clarifying what the tool operates on. The parenthetical distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tools and search_apps without needing to open the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_tools or search_apps. The query examples show what kinds of searches are possible, but there is no explicit context, exclusion, or routing to the correct sibling.

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