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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: content is gated, and Pro-gated proofs need a Pro license key for full pages. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what happens on a missing/unauthorized proof, or whether the response is truncated for non-Pro callers.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the contents of the proof are front-loaded before the access caveat. Slight deduction because the opening sentence is a noun phrase rather than a direct statement of the operation.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which partially compensates. But with one undocumented required parameter, no annotations, and no usage routing, an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke this confidently versus its siblings.

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 single parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. 'The proof for a skill' weakly implies the slug identifies a skill, but there is no format hint, no indication of where to obtain it, and no relationship to the identifiers used by sibling tools.

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 names the resource (the proof for a skill) and enumerates what it contains—fixed brief, model, skill commit, result-page links—so the artifact is clear. However, it never states the action explicitly (retrieve/fetch) and does nothing to separate it from get_skill, order_proof, or list_proven, leaving an agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite get_skill and order_proof being obvious confusables. The only conditional is a licensing prerequisite ('Full pages for Pro-gated proofs require a Pro license key'), which is a constraint rather than selection guidance.

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