Get a skill by name for an invite

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the authorization class 'public' and the API path, which are not in annotations. However, it does not discuss error cases, rate limits, or behavior for invalid tokens. The added value is modest.

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 concise: two sentences front-loading the purpose and adding the HTTP method and authorization. No superfluous text, though more details could be added without becoming verbose.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is marginally adequate. It lacks context on when to use this vs. sibling tools and does not explain the parameters. However, the output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It only hints via tool name that 'token' is the invite token and 'skillName' is the skill name, but does not explicitly define these. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 retrieves a specific skill by name for a given invite. The verb 'Get' and resource 'skill by name for an invite' are specific and match the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like pc_get_invites_by_token_skills_index (list all skills) and pc_get_skills_by_skill_name (global skill lookup).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain prerequisites (e.g., need a valid invite token) or scenarios where this is preferred over listing all skills for an invite or fetching a skill globally.

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