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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no return shape, ordering, or scope notes — so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter read tool. It is efficient, though there is essentially no structure beyond the one clause.

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, non-destructive list operation with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any mention of what the returned skill entries look like, but with no output schema and a trivial read, the gap is modest.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Hosted agent id.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('skills installed on a hosted agent'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the mutation siblings add_hosted_agent_skill and remove_hosted_agent_skill. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the neighboring read tools list_hosted_agent_mcp_connectors or list_hosted_agent_integrations.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to the add/remove skill tools, and there is no signal about pagination or filtering behavior.

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