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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: partial and case-insensitive matching, a 2-character minimum, paged results capped at 50 per page, and the underlying endpoint. It does not describe the response shape, but it goes well beyond what the annotation declares.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the scope, then the matching semantics and paging limit, then the endpoint reference. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, matching rules, and pagination adequately. It could optionally note required API permissions or that an invalid framework/version id yields no results, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: query matches either the skill name or the publisher's identifier, matching is partial and case-insensitive, and page_size is capped at 50. It leaves the page/meta.next_page mechanics entirely to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource with explicit scope: 'Search the skills of one published skills-framework version'. It also names the two search keys (name or publisher identifier) and the backing endpoint, which cleanly separates it from siblings like accredible_list_skill_frameworks or accredible_search_credentials.

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 establishes the required context (a published framework version, identified by framework_id/version_id) and the schema description points back to accredible_list_skill_frameworks for obtaining the id. However, there is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing (e.g. what to use instead when you need all skills unfiltered).

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