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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the response is metadata-only, field description is capped at 512 characters, and full SKILL.md content is deliberately excluded by default to keep discovery small. It stops short of stating ordering or behavior for an unknown playbook_id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the field list attached rather than spread across separate sentences. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 read-only two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this covers the important behavioral choice (metadata vs. full content). Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination, and error behavior for an invalid playbook_id, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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, including include_content's default and rationale. The description reinforces the metadata-vs-content distinction and the 512-character cap, but adds no syntax or format detail for playbook_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('List every skill currently attached to this playbook') and enumerates the metadata fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_skill or get_skill_reference, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'as metadata' and 'omitted by default to keep discovery small' suggest this is the lightweight discovery call before reaching for get_skill, but the description never names the alternative or says when to prefer it. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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