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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'This tool does not install anything'. It adds valuable behavioral context: the refusal condition (isError at 'warning' safety scan), the requirement to get user approval before applying, and the inclusion of a safety summary. The only minor gap is not detailing the exact error shape, but the refusal behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers the non-installation caveat, the approval requirement, the safety summary, the refusal condition, and parameter derivation—all in three sentences with no filler.

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 read-only informational tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (install command or file content), what to do with that result, when it errors, and how to construct the parameters. Nothing essential is missing 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that `owner` and `name` are the last two segments of a skill's pageUrl, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies that `agent` is the target installation environment. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 ('Get installation instructions'), a precise resource ('one skill on one agent'), and the exact output (install command or file to create). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it does not install anything, which separates it from get_skill and other skill-related tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('Exact installation instructions for one skill on one agent'), what to do after calling it ('apply the result yourself, and only after showing the user the skill and getting their approval'), and when it refuses ('when the skill's safety scan is at warning'). It also explains how to derive the parameters from a skill's pageUrl, which is clear usage guidance.

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