get_skills

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

The description adds nothing beyond the retrieval subject: no note on where the BA frequency data comes from, how fresh it is, whether results are cached, or what happens when the occupation cannot be resolved. Annotations oddly set readOnlyHint=false despite a 'get_' tool, and the description neither confirms nor resolves that ambiguity, leaving the agent with more questions than answers about side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, opening directly on the resource and its two data sources. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than excess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is legitimately omitted, and the one-line scope statement covers the core query. But for a four-parameter tool with only 50% schema coverage and ambiguous annotations, the description leaves too much unexplained — notably the limit/paging behavior and the meaning of 'sprache'.

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?

Coverage is 50%: 'beruf' and 'relation' are documented in the schema, and the description usefully surfaces the essential/optional distinction that maps to the relation enum. However, 'limit' (default 40, max 200) and 'sprache' (nullable, default null) are undocumented in both places, and the description does not explain how free text in 'beruf' is resolved against the ESCO/kldb/berufenet identifier formats.

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 names the resource and the operation precisely: skills for an occupation, combining ESCO essential/optional relations with frequencies derived from stored BA job postings. That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_tasks or get_occupation at a glance. What is missing is any explicit naming of the sibling it should be chosen over.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_occupation, get_occupation, get_tasks, or get_role_context, all of which sit in adjacent territory. The only implied usage cue is the required 'beruf' lookup key and the mention of ESCO relations. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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