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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload is the full SKILL.md text, which is useful beyond annotations, but says nothing about document size, truncation, or behavior when a name does not exist.

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 short sentences with the returned artifact front-loaded and the prerequisite lookup second. The connector-audience clause is the only piece that is slightly cryptic and could be trimmed.

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, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and the name source. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown skill name) and any size expectations for the returned document.

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% and the schema already defines name as "A skill name from list_skills"; the description merely restates that origin constraint. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and no additional format or matching rules are supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("The full text (SKILL.md) of one Hub skill") and explicitly contrasts with list_skills, which returns names only. An agent can distinguish this from the listing sibling without inspecting schemas, though the jargon "Hub skill" and the audience qualifier ("people using the connector without the plugin") add a little ambiguity.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: obtain the name via list_skills before calling. It does not state when-not to use it or how it relates to other single-item getters like get_explainer, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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