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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the admin gating, the 403 failure mode, and the fact that the full record is returned regardless of status, including page content, files, and media. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three tight sentences with the most consequential constraint (ADMIN ONLY) front-loaded, followed by return contents, then the workflow hint. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is padding.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers access requirements, lookup key, and return payload composition, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly. No meaningful gap remains.

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 is already documented as "Skill id or slug." The description's phrase "by id or slug" merely restates the schema, adding no format, prefix, or resolution-order detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("fetch a skill from the Unsora skills catalog by id or slug") and immediately qualifies the scope with ADMIN ONLY. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update-skill by framing itself as the read-side counterpart, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit call-site ("Use before update-skill to see the current state") and an explicit exclusion ("Non-admin accounts get a 403"), which tells the agent both when to reach for it and when it will fail. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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