Find skills

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the corpus size (~700 tags) and the fact that results carry a slug or id intended for reuse elsewhere. It omits behavior on zero matches, which keeps it below 5.

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, no filler, and the purpose plus the workflow instruction are front-loaded. Every clause carries usable information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by telling the agent the result contains a slug/id to feed into the `skills` filter. Minor gaps remain (no-match behavior, whether results are ranked), but nothing blocking for a small two-parameter lookup.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the Persian/English example and the limit bounds. The description adds only 'by name' and the scale figure, no format or matching-semantics detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find Ponisha skills') plus scale ('about 700 tags') and the search axis ('by name'). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never contrasts itself with pn_categories, the other taxonomy lookup an agent could confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use first when the user names a skill') and names three concrete downstream consumers (pn_search_projects, pn_search_freelancers, pn_market) along with how to pass the result. That is a complete when-and-how routing instruction.

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