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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the composite return shape (skill + latest scan + its findings), the finding filter (open and accepted manual findings), and the ordering (severity first). It omits permissions/auth behavior and what happens when no scan exists, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. The trailing "and that scan" clause is awkward and would be clearer as a list, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value, and it does so at a useful level of detail, including which findings are included and their ordering. Minor gaps remain around empty/no-scan cases and pagination of findings, but the tool's core is adequately specified.

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% and the skill_id and organisation parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, including the OAuth/API-key scoping caveat. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so 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 and resource ("Returns one skill") and enumerates what comes with it: latest-scan findings, open and accepted manual findings, and the scan itself. That separates it from list_skills, though it never names the sibling explicitly and the final clause ("and that scan") is grammatically tangled.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the required skill_id that this is the single-record fetch counterpart to list_skills; nothing addresses when to prefer list_findings or get_trust_score instead.

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