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

The description discloses that the tool is a retrieval operation and adds context that the result contains instructions to be read before the task. With no annotations, however, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, error behavior, or any access requirements.

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, front-loaded with the core return behavior and a short usage directive. Both sentences earn their place, though the phrase 'matching task' is somewhat vague.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema or annotations the description must carry more context. It fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'quiqqer_mcp_skill_get' and does not clarify the shape or size of the returned instruction body.

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 schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage), and the description only restates 'by name' rather than explaining what names are valid, matching semantics, or format. This leaves the agent with almost no additional parameter guidance.

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 identifies a concrete action ('Returns') and resource ('skill metadata and full instruction body') and specifies the lookup key ('by name'). It is clear in isolation, but it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling 'quiqqer_mcp_skill_get'.

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 directive 'Read the instructions before performing the matching task' implies this tool should be used to fetch instructions before executing a task. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as the skill-list tools.

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