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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond annotations: partial-match semantics, pagination, 'skills only' despite the endpoint name, the 10 Zooq credit cost, and that results expose skl_ id and normalized_name. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and front-loaded: scope, matching rule, pagination, intended use, and cost all appear in a few short sentences. Every clause adds operational value, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or annotations.

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 this read-only lookup tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, partial matching, pagination, cost, and the downstream /search/people use case. The main gap is not explicitly routing an agent between this tool and the g_skill_lookup sibling, but it is otherwise functionally complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that name uses partial matching and that pagination is page-based. It also connects the output to concrete fields (skl_ id, normalized_name) needed downstream, which enriches the behavior beyond what the schema alone communicates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Skill catalog search by name (partial match)' and explicitly narrows scope to 'skills only, despite the endpoint name.' This is clear and disambiguates the tool from its own endpoint name, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling g_skill_lookup, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: 'Use to find a skill's skl_ id or normalized_name for the /search/people skills filter.' This is actionable context for an agent. It does not mention when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so explicit exclusions are absent.

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