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 value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned detail set (composition, dependencies, onboarding steps, API surface guidance), which is important since 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose and payload contents come first, and the sourcing instruction for the parameters follows, which is the correct front-loading order.

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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it, including what the response contains. Minor gaps remain around behavior when the slug is not found or the entity type mismatches.

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 both parameters carry descriptions plus an enum for entity_type, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces provenance (values come from skillbook_search results) without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

"Get the full details for a specific Skillbook entity" names a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of what the payload contains (composition, dependencies, onboarding steps, API surface guidance) makes the output concrete. Referencing skillbook_search for the identifiers cleanly separates lookup-by-id from search.

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?

"Use the entity_type and slug from skillbook_search results" gives a clear precondition and workflow ordering, telling the agent this is the follow-up to a search rather than a standalone lookup. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. bulk retrieval or search-by-keyword cases), so it is strong but not complete.

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