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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behaviors: partial matching, page-paginated results, skill-only scope despite the endpoint name, and a 10-Zooq-credit cost. No contradiction 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?

Four short units of information—operation, pagination, use case, cost—are front-loaded and every clause earns its place. No filler or restatement of the schema.

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?

Given output schema, annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description supplies nearly everything needed: purpose, partial-match semantics, pagination, cost, and result usage. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing from g_skill_lookup, but nothing essential is missing.

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 name, page, and limit. The description adds semantic value by explaining that name is a partial match and that the result supplies skl_ id/normalized_name for downstream filtering, going beyond the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement: 'Skill catalog search by name (partial match)' and clarifies scope ('skills only, despite the endpoint name'). It also states the concrete downstream purpose: finding skl_ id or normalized_name for the /search/people skills filter. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling lookup tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: to locate a skill's skl_ id or normalized_name for the /search/people filter. It does not name alternatives such as g_skill_lookup or state when not to use it, so it misses the exclusion part of ideal guidance.

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