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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating what the returned schema includes: interface spec, input/output schemas, permissions, and capability tags.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action and return contents. The bilingual duplication adds some token overhead, but the structure remains clear and the repeated content appears intentional for multilingual callers.

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 has one required parameter fully described in the schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description complements these by summarizing the returned schema contents, leaving little missing for correct invocation.

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 schema itself explains that skill_id is the UUID returned by search_skills with a concrete example. The description only restates the parameter as 'skill_id: 스킬 ID,' adding no details beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema already does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting the full invocation schema for a skill, including interface spec, input/output schemas, permissions, and capability tags. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill or search_skills, which retrieve skill data rather than invocation metadata.

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 purpose implies when to use it—when an agent needs the schema required to invoke a skill—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_skill or search_skills. The usage context is understandable but not sharply delimited.

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