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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that the tool never raises a protocol error but returns an error object on invalid input, and that it is safe to retry after correcting input. It also explains that the skill is chosen automatically with no plan required.

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?

The description is compact with three short paragraphs, each adding distinct value: purpose, example, usage guidelines and error behavior. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no enums, and an output schema exists, the description fully covers purpose, example, error handling, relationship to siblings, and retry safety. It is wholly sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% with the slug parameter already documented with source and example. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Load a product's free gateway skill with its complete instructions', specifying verb (load) and resource (free gateway skill). It distinguishes from sibling get_full_skill by noting that other skills require a skill_name and a paid plan. A typical input/output example reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the caller wants usable instructions immediately' and contrasts with 'Not for the product's other skills: those are named and need get_full_skill with a skill_name, which requires a paid plan.' This provides direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative tool.

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