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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a catalog of valid skill names but little about operational behavior, such as defaulting to SKILL.md, using '.' to list roots, or how output is structured (though some of that is in the schema). No contradiction with annotations.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the description is dominated by an enormous inline skill catalog with lengthy trigger phrases and keyword lists. While the catalog is informative, it makes the tool description overly large and mixes operational guidance with content that arguably belongs elsewhere.

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?

Given the schema covers both parameters and annotations cover safety, an agent can likely call this tool correctly. The available-skills list helps select skill_name, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values. However, the description misses routing guidance versus search_docs and subtly mischaracterizes the tool as TimescaleDB-only when the catalog spans many PostgreSQL topics.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating actual valid skill_name values in the available_skills list. This is especially useful because the schema has no enum and skill_name is otherwise a free-form string. The description does not add much for the path parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve detailed skills' for database operations, and the name/title align with that purpose. However, it frames the tool as TimescaleDB-specific while the embedded skill catalog is broader (Postgres, pgvector, migrations), and it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_docs, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use view_skill versus search_docs, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The large available-skills catalog implies the tool is for browsing/selecting a skill, but it never states that search_docs is for searching documentation or that view_skill is the right tool for reading skill files.

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