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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral detail beyond that—it discloses what content comes back (SKILL.md body without front matter, plus the existence of other files)—but says nothing about how version defaults, size limits, or failure modes behave.

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 short sentence with zero waste and the payload front-loaded. It is slightly clipped—a parenthetical fragment rather than a full sentence—but nothing is redundant.

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 must explain return values and partly does (instructions plus a pointer to other files via skills_read_file). Given this is a lookup tool that returns document content, an agent still lacks a picture of the response shape (e.g., whether a file list accompanies the instructions, how version selection surfaces), so it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, including format notes for name (workspace-slug/name or id) and the version default, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement: it names the payload ("A skill's instructions (SKILL.md without front matter)") but never says the tool loads/returns it. It does usefully separate itself from skills_read_file by delegating "other files" there, so the resource is identifiable even though the action is implicit.

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?

Partial routing guidance is given: read a skill's other files with skills_read_file. There is no statement of when to call this at all (e.g., before acting on a skill, versus skills_list for discovery), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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