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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add return-shape context, which it does: ordered steps with skill name, inputs/outputs, and links. Minor gaps remain around behavior for unknown bundle ids and whether any bundle-level metadata beyond steps is included.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and the shape of each step, the second handles the hand-off to get_skill. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape and the sibling hand-off well. It stops short of noting edge behavior (invalid/unknown id) or any bundle-level fields, which keeps it just below fully 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% and the single id parameter is documented with a max length and an example ('standard-website' from list_bundles), so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the id format or constraints beyond what the schema already states — baseline 3 is 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?

Specific verb and resource ('Returns one bundle's ordered steps') plus a precise description of the payload: skill name, inputs/outputs per step, and web link. It also differentiates itself from get_skill by stating that full step instructions live there, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

'Full instructions for a step come from get_skill' explicitly routes the agent to the sibling for deeper detail, and the schema notes the id comes from list_bundles. However, there is no statement of when this tool is preferable to alternatives (e.g., list_skills or search_skills) or any exclusion condition.

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