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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, but the description adds behavior they cannot: it never raises a protocol error and instead returns a structured {error} payload with recovery guidance, and it states retries are safe after correction. It also discloses that exactly one skill is auto-selected with no plan needed, which is non-obvious routing behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then disambiguation, then error contract. Slightly long with the redundant example input/output restatement, but nearly every sentence adds routing or behavioral value.

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?

Output schema exists and the description still covers the important non-obvious pieces: error payload shape, no-plan requirement, single-skill selection, and retry safety. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 slug parameter is already fully documented with format and non-empty constraint, so the description's example input largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (load) and resource (a product's free gateway skill) and explicitly contrasts with get_full_skill, which handles the product's other skills. An agent can immediately tell which of the two skill tools applies.

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 an explicit when-to-use trigger ('Use when the caller wants usable instructions immediately'), an explicit when-not ('Not for the product's other skills... need get_full_skill with a skill_name, which requires a paid plan'), and points to list_products as the recovery path for bad slugs.

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