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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 2-character minimum input and a cap of 10 results, which affects how the agent should call and consume it. It omits what happens with zero matches, so not a 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, front-loaded with the minimum length and result cap, which are the operationally important facts. The closing clause about keeping data clean is mild justification padding but supports the usage framing.

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 explained in prose, and annotations cover the safety traits. The description covers input constraints and result shape adequately; the only missing piece is guidance on the optional locale/language scoping and empty-result behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents keyword, locale, language and customvalues; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the minimum length constraint but adds nothing about the scoping role of locale/language/customvalues, which is where extra meaning would have been valuable.

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?

Specific verb+resource: accepts a partial skill prefix and returns ranked autocomplete suggestions with canonical names and categories, capped at 10. It is clearly an autocomplete tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling lookup_skill, which an agent might also consider for skill resolution.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'at point of entry' and 'prevents free-text entry errors' suggest it belongs in data-entry flows, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., lookup_skill for exact matches). The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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