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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior: it returns full stats and, on no exact match, returns closest matching names. This clarifies failure behavior beyond what the annotations express.

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, logically ordered, and front-loaded with the core action before the return-value and fallback details. Every sentence earns its place, and the sibling-tool pointer is included without bloat.

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 a simple read-only lookup tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover purpose, parameter semantics, return contents, failure behavior, and the alternative tool. There is no material gap an agent would need to fill by trial and error.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the id/name lookup modes but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema, nor does it clarify precedence if both are supplied. It is adequate, not rich.

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 says exactly what the tool does: look up a single GW1 skill by exact English name or template skill id. It lists the fields returned and explicitly contrasts itself with search_skills, making its scope and differences from siblings clear.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool when you already know the exact skill, and use search_skills when discovering skills by profession, attribute, or name fragment. It also explains the nearest-match fallback for misspellings, which helps an agent decide whether this tool will still be useful.

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