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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the response omits content. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown skill_ids, or how the optional version parameter affects the result.

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 short sentences with the scope qualifier and the alternative front-loaded; every word earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does so only in the negative ('without content'). The optional version parameter and its effect on the response are unexplained, leaving a real gap for a lookup 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 only 50%: skill_id is documented in the schema ('sk_... or slug') but version has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented version parameter.

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 specific resource (skill details) and narrows the scope with '(without content)', which is the key differentiator from the sibling use_skill. It is clear what is returned, though the verb is elided and the resolution key (skill_id) is only implicit.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to use_skill when the content is needed, giving a clean either/or with its most easily confused sibling. It doesn't state any other conditions or prerequisites, but the main selection decision is covered.

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