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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses optimistic-concurrency semantics by tying the returned 'version' to 'expected_version' on the set tool. But it says nothing about failure behavior (missing skill/version mismatch), permissions, or which version is default beyond what the schema states.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then adds two short, relevant clauses about the return value and its downstream use. Compact and free of filler, though the version-to-expected_version note reads slightly fragmented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, and the description still highlights the one semantically important field. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is largely complete, missing only error/edge-case behavior.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (default: latest active). The description only restates 'by name (and optionally version)' without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch a stored skill by name') with scope qualifiers ('optionally version'), so an agent can tell it retrieves a single skill. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like memory_skill_resolve or memory_skills_list, which is the only real gap.

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?

Provides a concrete workflow link ('Pass it as expected_version on memory_skill_set when you edit a shared skill'), which implies the read-before-write pattern. However, it never states when to choose this over memory_skill_resolve or memory_skills_list, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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