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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return format (markdown) and that the payload is the complete guide rather than a summary. It stops short of noting error behavior for an invalid skill name or how large the guide may be.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the output format. No redundant phrasing and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on a missing or stale skill name.

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 the single parameter's schema text already says it is "a skill's 'name' field, as returned by list_skills." The description restates that provenance without adding format, casing, or lookup constraints, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Get the full guide for one skill") and pins the scope to a single item versus the list form. Naming 'list_skills' as the source of the identifier separates it from that sibling, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly-named getters such as mba_get_agent_skill.

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?

Usage is only implied through the reference to 'list_skills', which signals a two-step list-then-fetch workflow. There is no explicit statement of when this tool is preferred over alternatives, nor any exclusion or precondition (e.g., what happens if the name is unknown).

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