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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (file content plus zip link) and the failure/empty condition, though it stops short of saying how a missing skill is signaled (error vs. empty).

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 short sentences with no waste; the deliverable and file path are front-loaded, and the caveat lands last where it is easy to catch. The opening noun-fragment phrasing is slightly clipped but costs nothing in practice.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value burden — and it does, naming both artifacts returned and their intended use. The one gap is how the "no skill" case manifests at call time, which an agent would want to know before invoking.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents `slug` as "The setup slug." The description reinforces that the slug identifies a setup and that only skill-bearing setups resolve, but adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 precisely what is returned: the SKILL.md content for a setup, a ready-to-save file path, and a .zip link for the Claude app. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_setup, which returns the setup itself, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

"Only setups with a skill have one" tells the agent the precondition for a successful call, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call get_skill versus get_setup, nor what to do when the setup lacks a skill — the agent must infer both.

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