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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reports that the return is a markdown body, that the skill should be applied locally for the session, and that ownership affects availability ('not found') and certain slugs produce errors. It does not cover permissions, authentication, or whether the session application persists beyond the current session, so it falls short of exhaustive transparency.

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 four sentences, front-loads the purpose, then adds usage, ownership, and error routing. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or waste.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, session application, ownership limits, and sibling routing. The main missing piece is slug semantics, which the schema does not provide and the description only partially implies. Given the low complexity and existing output schema, this gap is minor but real.

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%, so the single `slug` parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description indirectly adds meaning by noting the tool accepts catalogue or owned skills and that `team` and `debate` are reserved slugs that error. However, it does not explain slug format, source, or accepted patterns, leaving a clear gap for the only required parameter.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Returns the markdown body of a skill'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming that `team` is served by `activate` and `debate` by `start_debate`. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and when not to use it.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Read it and apply it as a local skill for the rest of the session.' It also specifies when the tool will not work ('A skill that belongs to someone else is not found') and routes special slugs (`team`, `debate`) to their correct sibling tools. Nothing about selection is left implicit.

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