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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about what the body looks like (markdown, steps, sections), what happens on an unknown or missing skill_id, or any size/truncation behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, but terse to the point of under-specification; brevity here is not the same as efficiency since nothing is front-loaded beyond the basic action.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and the identifier's origin, and it does neither. For a content-retrieval tool this leaves an agent guessing about the response shape.

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 0% and the single parameter skill_id has no description in either the schema or the prose. The description never says the ID must come from skill_list, which is the main thing an agent needs to use this parameter correctly.

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 (돌려줍니다 / returns) and a specific resource (one procedure document's body). The phrase "한 편의 본문" implicitly distinguishes it from skill_list, which returns a listing rather than content, though it never names that sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus skill_list or the other get_* tools. An agent must infer that it needs a skill_id obtained elsewhere, and nothing explains when body retrieval is appropriate.

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