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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output includes 'instructions, version, and quality scores', indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., missing slug), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool with one well-described parameter and clear output, the description is fairly complete. It lacks mention of error behavior or exactness of slug matching, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'slug', and the description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. The tool description lists output fields but does not elaborate on the parameter. Given high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Get full details about a skill including instructions, version, and quality scores'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('skill details'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like install_skill (installation), list_installed_skills (listing installed), and search_skills (searching).

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 description implies use when you have a specific skill slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The requirement of a slug is clear from the schema, but guidance on context is lacking.

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