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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds that the result is raw bytes rather than metadata. It does not disclose behavior for missing skills, whether name is required despite the schema listing zero required parameters, or any size/encoding details, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the core behavior, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action, parameter role, and return type. However, it omits practical context such as how to obtain valid skill names, whether the name is required, and error behavior when the skill does not exist, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 description carries the full burden for explaining the 'name' parameter. It only says the skill is fetched 'by name,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the property name itself. It does not clarify what constitutes a valid name, how to find names, or what happens if no name is provided.

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 ('Return'), a precise resource ('bytes of a platform skill'), and the selection mechanism ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_skills, which would return a collection, and from other sibling tools focused on accounts, projects, or logs.

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 phrase 'by name' implies the tool is used when the caller already knows the skill name, and the need to obtain raw bytes is implied. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to list_skills as the way to discover valid skill names, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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