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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the source is portable and directly applicable in multiple agents, and the returned skill passed the Sigistry safety check at the parent plugin's verification date. This supplements the annotation profile without contradicting it.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and supporting portability/verification context in the following sentences. Each sentence adds relevant information, though the safety-check sentence could arguably be more precise about what 'parent plugin's verification date' means.

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 single required parameter, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned, how portable it is, and its verification status. Minor gaps remain around what the output schema contains and how 'parent plugin' is provided, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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% for the single `name` parameter, including an example and a pointer to search_skills. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Get one Sigistry skill by name') and a specific resource ('full raw SKILL.md source'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_skills by emphasizing retrieval by exact name with the portable raw source, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use the tool — when you have a specific skill name and want the portable SKILL.md source — but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The mention of search_skills appears only in the parameter schema, not in the description proper, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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