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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing an enforcement rule enforced downstream by publish: missing policy or consent checkbox causes rejection. It does not say what the response looks like (template text, markup snippet, or checklist), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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, zero filler, and the mandatory precondition is front-loaded in caps so an agent scanning the description immediately sees the trigger. Every clause adds information (precondition, content, enforcement consequence).

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 zero-param, no-output-schema knowledge skill, the description covers the trigger, the subject matter, and the enforcement risk. The only thing an agent might still wonder is the shape of the returned content, but nothing blocking correct invocation 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call with no scoping arguments needed.

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 names the specific content the tool surfaces (questions to ask, privacy policy guidance, exact consent markup) and ties it to the publish workflow, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_skill_publish or get_skill_form_management. It never explicitly says it *returns guidance/instructions* rather than performing an action, so the verb is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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?

'REQUIRED before publishing any page with a form' gives an explicit trigger condition plus the consequence of skipping it (publish rejected), which is unusually strong usage guidance. What's missing is a boundary against adjacent skills (e.g. get_skill_form_management, get_skill_content_policy) for the case of pages without forms, where the requirement does not apply.

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