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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mainly return-shape detail (url, sections, relations), which duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing new behavioral traits, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three compact sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by when-to-use and input/return summary. Dense but every clause carries weight; only a minor lack of readability in the phrasing.

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 need not be explained, and the description still routes to describe_relations. Combined with full parameter coverage and read-only annotations, it is complete enough for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100% and the single `type` parameter is already documented in the schema ('A type name from list_types, such as skill'). The description merely restates 'Input: `type`', adding no new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 holds.

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: it returns one type's schema, decomposed into 'sections as written' and 'declared relations as data'. It partially differentiates from siblings by naming describe_relations for the whole-vocabulary case, though the jargon ('sections as written') is slightly opaque.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use to learn what an entity of the type may hold') and names the alternative ('for the whole vocabulary use describe_relations'). No exclusions or prerequisites are given, but the routing guidance is clear.

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