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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the return contents (latest SKILL.md text plus file listing), which matters because no output schema exists.

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; the resource and its return payload are stated immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool whose parameters are fully specified in the schema and whose annotations cover the safety profile, the remaining gap is describing the return format. The description does sketch the return (SKILL.md text, file listing), though without structure or pagination detail given there is no output schema.

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?

Both orgID and skillID are fully documented in the schema with format patterns, giving 100% coverage, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifiers, making 3 the correct baseline.

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+resource ('Returns one skill') and names the payload (latest SKILL.md text and file listing), so it is clearly distinguishable from a generic getter. It does not explicitly contrast with the neighbouring skills_list or skills_delete, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Returns one skill' implies single-item retrieval by ID, which is implied usage rather than an explicit when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over skills_list, and there are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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