Search Skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on what the search matches against, how results are ranked or paged, or how the version parameter affects the taxonomy used.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter hint second; nothing is wasted. The phrasing around the skill_type values is compact and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a four-parameter read-only search tool, the definition plus annotations plus schema give an agent enough to call it correctly; only the unstated meaning of query and version are minor residual gaps.

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%, and the schema also defines no enum, so the description's breakdown of skill_type values (ST1 specialized, ST2 common, ST3 certification, comma-separated) is genuinely valuable and would otherwise be undiscoverable. However, the remaining three parameters (query, limit, version) get no explanation, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource ("Search the Skills taxonomy"), which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings like bulk_retrieve_skills or find_similar_skills, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to search rather than bulk-retrieve, look up details, or find similar skills. The only guidance is about a parameter value, not about tool selection or prerequisites.

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