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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description earns credit for disclosing the return shape (Markdown with when-to-use, inputs, procedure, acceptance checks, boundaries, docs) and the dual read modes.

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 primary behavior and followed by the secondary file mode, with no filler. Slightly list-heavy but every clause carries information.

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 fills the return-value gap by describing the Markdown sections returned, and it explains both the main and file-retrieval modes. A read-only, two-parameter tool is sufficiently covered, though auth or sourcing prerequisites remain unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with their own examples and formats. The description adds only a slightly richer example for the file path ('references/destination-mapping.md'), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return one skill as Markdown') and enumerates the returned sections, plus the secondary 'Pass file to read...' mode. It is a retrieval tool clearly distinct from list_skills/search_skills by being singular, though it never names the siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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?

The file parameter's usage is explained ('Pass file to read one of the skill's reference, asset or script files'), giving implicit when-to-use guidance for the optional mode. However there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_skills/search_skills, or any prerequisites/ordering.

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