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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the server does not execute anything, the agent must run the returned command in the user's terminal. It stops short of stating preconditions (does the slug need to exist?) or whether the returned command is stable across calls.

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 with no filler, front-loading the returned artifact and then the operational constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return value as a one-line terminal command. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and both enums are fully documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of the agent list and the user/project distinction adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies; nothing about defaulting or enum interplay is clarified further.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get the one-line terminal command that installs a Lookbk skill') and scopes it by agent and by user/project target. It is clearly distinguishable from list/search/get_skill siblings, though it never explicitly names them for contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description says the server never runs the command and the agent does, which tells an agent this is a fetch-then-execute flow. It does not say when to prefer this over get_skill or what to do if the user has already installed the skill.

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