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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or that it's a read-only operation. For a 'get' tool, the lack of transparency is acceptable but not ideal.

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 no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and data returned, and the second explains the optional parameter. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values (float range, prices, collections, cases, optional trade-up context). It helps differentiate from sibling tools by listing specific data. Could mention that it only retrieves one skin, but that is clear from the first sentence.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context for the optional include_tradeup_context parameter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool gets one CS2 skin with specific data (float range, per-wear prices, collections, cases), and optionally trade-up context. The verb 'get' and resource 'skin detail' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_skins (which lists multiple) and browse_collections (which is about collections).

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 mentions the optional inclusion of trade-up context, giving a hint about when to use that parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_skins or browse_collections. It does list what data it provides, which indirectly helps with selection.

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