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

The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope and result detail through "your" skills and "full procedure," but leaves whether L3 is fixed or merely a default unclear.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loads the retrieval action and resource. The ID and L3 details add specificity without filler, though the final clause could express default-versus-fixed behavior more clearly.

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?

Annotations and the output schema cover safety and response shape, so extensive return-value documentation is unnecessary. However, the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters, particularly disclosure-tier behavior and skill ID discovery.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, "by id" adds little beyond the skill_id name, although "full procedure" usefully explains L3. The description does not explain the L1 or L2 enum values, the optional parameter's default, or where to obtain a skill ID.

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 clearly states the action and resource: retrieve one Dactic skill by ID, including its full procedure at L3. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as list_skills or get_skill_usage.

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 wording implies use when the caller already knows a skill ID and wants its full procedure. It provides no explicit routing to list_skills for ID discovery, get_skill_usage for usage information, or guidance on when another disclosure tier is preferable.

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