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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: that the full document is returned untruncated and that the call is free (no billing), which matters given the hyreflow_billing_balance sibling. It does not describe size limits or output shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then parameter mechanics, then the cost note. No filler.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, both parameters with examples, and the no-cost property. Only the error/not-found behavior and return format boundaries are unstated, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: 'skill' is a package name with an example, 'path' selects a document inside it with an example, and a hyreflow://skills/ URI is accepted whole. Edge cases like path traversal or invalid names are not addressed.

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+resource ("Return one skill document in full") and clarifies scope versus list/search siblings implicitly by emphasizing a single document. It does not explicitly differentiate from hyreflow_custom_skill_read, which is the closest 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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need the content of a known skill or path. The 'skill' vs 'skill + path' selection logic is spelled out, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., use hyreflow_skill_search to discover, this to read).

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