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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key limitation: the output schema is reduced to field names and the exact output format is only available after purchase. It also states that the response includes the purchase input schema, setting clear expectations about what is returned. This is significant behavioral context beyond a simple 'get'.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the main action, the key output feature (purchase schema), and the output limitation.

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 simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the included purchase schema, and the output format limitation. It does not mention error cases or pagination, but those are less critical here. The sibling tools provide surrounding context, making this sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain the skill_id parameter, but the phrase 'one skill listing' implies that skill_id identifies the target listing. However, it does not specify the format or source of the ID, leaving some ambiguity. Given there is only one parameter and its purpose is fairly obvious, a middle score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('one skill listing'), and adds a specific detail about including the purchase input JSON Schema. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_skills (search) and purchase_skill (buy). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving details before purchasing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., use this before purchase_skill, or use search_skills for discovery). There is no exclusion guidance or explicit condition, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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