Normalize Title And Extract Skills

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's real contribution is the quota warning that a call may consume two classifier requests, plus the note that it uses the current Classification release. That is meaningful operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of explaining what happens when quota is exhausted or how the two requests are split.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the cost caveat, with no filler. The hedge 'May consume' is slightly imprecise about when the second request is actually spent, which keeps it from a 5.

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 values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. But for a three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the version and confidence_threshold semantics entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool whose output varies by release and threshold.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it says nothing about the 'version' parameter (its 'current Classification release' phrasing arguably implies the default rather than a selectable version) and nothing about what confidence_threshold controls or how it affects extraction. Only 'title' is self-evident from the name.

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 states two specific verbs and resources: normalize a title and extract explicitly mentioned skills. That is clear enough to separate it from single-purpose siblings like normalize_job_title or extract_skills_from_text, but it never names those alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 an implied usage constraint in 'explicitly mentioned skills', which tells the agent this tool does not infer unstated skills. However, the description never says when to choose this combined tool over the sibling single-purpose tools, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions.

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