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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds only that the result is a JSON string with vetting status — no rate limits, auth requirements, or not-found behavior for an unknown skill_id, which is a real gap for an open-world lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then compact Args/Returns sections. The Korean restatement doubles the length of the opening sentence without adding information, which is the only real waste.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; the parameter is fully documented. What's missing is only sibling disambiguation, which is a moderate rather than blocking gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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 the schema itself specifies the UUID format with an example, so the description need not repeat it. The description's '(search_skills 결과의 skill_id)' adds the useful provenance note but nothing about format or validation, so 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 ('Get detailed info for a specific skill') and enumerates the payload: description, platforms, version history, author, vetting status. This clearly separates it from list-style siblings like search_skills, though it never names get_skill_schema or get_vetting_result, which could also return skill-scoped data.

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 Args section implies the workflow prerequisite ('skill_id from search_skills results'), which is a genuine usage hint. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing advice versus siblings such as get_skill_schema, get_vetting_result, or check_vetting_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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