Get skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — 'ownership authority' is never explained (does it mean the caller must own the skill, or that results are scoped to owned skills?).

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?

It is a single short phrase with no padding, which is structurally clean, but the one sentence is cryptic rather than informative — brevity here reflects under-specification more than efficient communication.

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, the description should at least indicate what a skill record contains or how it relates to skills_list/grant_skills_*, but it does neither. For a two-parameter lookup tool in a large sibling set, this leaves an agent guessing at both inputs and return value.

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%, so the two required parameters (orgID, skillID) are documented only by regex patterns in the schema, with no plain-language meaning anywhere. The description does not explain that these are the organization and skill identifiers, leaving the description failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource pair ('Get skill') is identifiable and matches the title, so an agent knows this retrieves a single skill record. However, the qualifying phrase 'through ownership authority' is opaque and does not clarify scope, nor does it distinguish this from skills_list or skills_delete in any concrete way.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus skills_list (to enumerate) or skills_delete, nor any prerequisite about needing org/skill identifiers or permissions. The 'ownership authority' phrase hints at an access condition but never states it as guidance.

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