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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that results are 'authoritative' and full-record rather than ranked, which is useful, but says nothing about not-found behavior, partial keyword matching, or fallback when a skill is missing.

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 with zero waste: the first front-loads what the record contains, the second frames when to use it. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is repeated or padded.

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 and the schema fully documents parameters, so the description needn't carry return structure or parameter detail. The one remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (skill not found, ambiguous matches), which for a lookup tool an agent would reasonably want stated.

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%, so all four parameters (keyword, locale, language, customvalues) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the notion of a 'known skill' lookup and no extra meaning about keyword matching, locale fallback, or defaults.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Returns authoritative detail for a known skill') and enumerates what the record contains (aliases, related skills, proficiency levels, O*NET/ESCO mappings). It distinguishes itself conceptually from search-style behavior, though it never names a concrete sibling such as autocomplete_skill or skill_mapping.

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?

'Use when you need the complete record rather than a ranked search' gives a clear selection condition. However, the alternative is described generically ('a ranked search') rather than by sibling tool name, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what to do on ambiguous or unknown skills) are given.

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