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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: no hourly quota (rate-limit behavior not in annotations) and a once-per-session caching rule. It stops short of describing what the returned skill payload looks like or its size, but the safety and cost profile is well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then discovery pointer, then timing. The parenthetical name list is the only length and it earns its place by supplying valid values.

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 what it returns at a high level ('step-by-step instructions'), where to find names, and when to call it. A brief note on how large or how structured the returned skill content is would close the remaining gap.

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 parameter is fully self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by enumerating the valid skill names (agent, feed-tuner, filter-writing, job-scout, ratings, telegram-setup), which the schema does not provide and which functions as an effective value guide.

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 and resource ('Load a skill') and immediately defines what a skill is ('step-by-step instructions for one kind of task'). It also distinguishes itself from get_agent_context by pointing there for the index of names, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Gives explicit timing ('Load the skill before you act on that task, once per session') and routes discovery to the alternative tool ('Names and when to use each are in the skills index of get_agent_context'). The relationship between lookup-by-index and load-by-name is unambiguous.

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