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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by explicitly countering the 'install' name ('nothing is installed or changed') and by describing returned content: the skill's setup steps and a verification check.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering identity, inputs, outputs, and read-only status with little waste. The bilingual 'Moshid / مشيد — مهارة' prefix adds minor noise but no real cost.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the operation, its read-only nature, and the shape of the response (setup steps plus a check). Only the slug's accepted format and sibling differentiation remain unaddressed.

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 0% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It states the slug identifies one skill or instruction file, but the SKILL.md/AGENTS.md examples read as returned-file types rather than slug syntax, leaving the format ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Returns the files of one Moshid skill or instruction file by slug') and lists concrete examples (SKILL.md, AGENTS.md). It notably overrides the misleading name 'install_skill' by clarifying nothing is installed, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_resource or get_guide.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. The agent learns what the tool returns but not the conditions under which this should be chosen over get_resource, get_guide, or browse_catalog.

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