search_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns specific fields (name, module, etc.) and mentions a direct download URL for free items, implying paid items may behave differently. It doesn't cover query behavior or side effects, but for a non-destructive search tool, this is sufficient.

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 compact at three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance with examples, return fields. Front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, when to use, what is returned. Could mention how parameters affect results but the schema handles that. Sibling tools fill the remaining gaps. Not missing anything critical.

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 100% with each parameter already well-described (type, enum, constraints). The description adds overall context about free text matching and return fields but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'AgentSkill catalog of installable AI-agent capabilities'. It specifies the tool's purpose: to find capabilities the agent doesn't have. This distinguishes it from siblings 'get_capability' (likely detail) and 'list_modules' (module listing).

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use when the user wants a capability the agent does not have'. It provides concrete examples (e.g., market data, image upscaling). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name the sibling tools as alternatives, but the use case is clear enough.

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