search_skills

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: empty query browses the full index, otherwise it returns a specific playbook. It does not say what happens on a non-matching slug (empty result vs error), which is the main remaining gap for an open-world lookup tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then usage, then args — good ordering. The 16-item skill list is long but earns its place by eliminating guesswork about valid inputs; only the exact-vs-prefix ambiguity is wasted space that could be resolved in one clause.

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, and the description covers purpose, sequencing, input semantics, and the full catalog of retrievable skills. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: the single 'query' parameter is explained as a skill slug or empty string, with four worked examples. Minor inconsistency: the Args section says 'exact slug' while the 'ecommerce' example implies substring matching, which could confuse an agent about match semantics.

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 and resource ('Fetch analytical recipes and how-to guides from the GA4 skills library') and clarifies that skills are playbooks with dimensions, metrics, filters and interpretation logic. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling query tools like get_ga4_data or search_schema without opening 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?

Explicitly sequences the tool: 'Call this BEFORE querying get_ga4_data for any domain-specific analysis', naming both the condition and the alternative. It goes further by enumerating all available skill slugs, so the agent knows what it can retrieve without a probe call.

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