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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful domain behavior (free-text queries are mapped onto 12 categories rather than returned verbatim), but says nothing about match scoring, empty results, or pagination beyond what the schema states.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and the trigger examples immediately after. The three quoted example queries are somewhat redundant with each other, using a bit more space than needed, but nothing is wasted filler.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented in-schema, the description only needs to carry purpose and usage, both of which it does well. It could still clarify how results relate to director records versus the taxonomy itself, but it is sufficient to call the tool 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% and all three parameters (q, mode, limit) are already documented in the schema, including the resolve/search/taxonomy mode meanings. The description's taxonomy-mapping sentence lightly corroborates the q/mode semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus a precisely scoped resource (ESCO-aligned skills taxonomy) and quantifies the space (12 categories, 68 sub-skills). It is clearly distinct from adjacent tools like get_board_skills_matrix or search_board_candidates, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ("find directors with cybersecurity skills", "who has M&A experience?", "Te Tiriti governance expertise") plus a catch-all "any skill-related director search", which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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