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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the operation costs 10 Zooq credits and returns both display and normalized names, which helps the agent anticipate side effects and output shape.

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 concise sentences, both earning their place: the first states the operation and return values, the second provides the id source and cost. No redundant filler or restatement of 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 a single-parameter lookup tool with a rich annotations block, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the source of the id, the cost, and what the tool returns, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter, including the skl_ prefix and the instruction to read data[].id from g_title_skills_lookup. The description adds no meaning beyond repeating what the schema already provides, hence the baseline 3.

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, 'Resolve', with a clear resource, 'one skill by its stable skl_ id', and states the return values: display name and normalized name. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling g_title_skills_lookup, which is for searching skills rather than resolving a single ID.

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 tells the agent where to get the required id — from g_title_skills_lookup via data[].id — which establishes the correct upstream workflow. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the lookup-versus-search distinction is clearly implied.

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