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 clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation, not a mutation or data-fetching call. It also implies that the output is educational content (playbooks) rather than raw data. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing clarity or usage guidance.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, usage, and expected output. It tells the agent not just what the tool does but why and when to use it, making it contextually complete for a simple list-style tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that the output consists of playbooks for understanding GSC data, which frames what the agent would receive. No parameter-specific information is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('available analytical skills (playbooks) for Google Search Console'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (sitemap management, data retrieval) by focusing on playbooks/interpretation guidance, so the agent knows exactly what this tool offers.

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 states the use case: 'Use this to learn proven field combinations and how to interpret GSC data for specific SEO tasks.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling tool names, the differentiation is implicit.

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