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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the response omits skill content. It says nothing about version defaults, error behavior for unknown ids, or response shape, so it clears the lowered bar without exceeding it.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines scope, the second routes to the correct sibling. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a simple read tool with full safety annotations, the description covers scope and routing adequately. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place return information could live and it only gestures at it ('details'), leaving the undocumented version parameter and the actual returned fields unaddressed.

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 ('sk_... or slug') but version has no description anywhere. The tool description provides zero parameter guidance and does not explain what version means or what happens when it is omitted, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Skill details') and immediately narrows scope with '(without content)', which distinguishes it from use_skill and from the other skill tools (publish_skill, rate_skill, search_skills). It stops short of saying what the 'details' actually contain, so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 names the alternative ('Use use_skill to get the content') and the condition that selects it, which is real routing guidance. It does not address the other plausible siblings (search_skills for discovery, rate_skill for feedback), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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