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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by spelling out the return shape in each mode (index of names/descriptions vs. markdown) and explicitly confirming no account, project, or canvas state changes, which reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two-mode behavior, then the safety note. No filler and nothing repeated unnecessarily.

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 optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, both return modes, and the non-mutating guarantee. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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's own description already explains that omitting 'name' lists available skills and gives an example value. The description restates the omit-vs-provide behavior without adding format, casing, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read Bloom authoring documentation') and immediately clarifies the two operating modes: index listing without a name, markdown document with a name. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool, which deal with canvas frames, branches, and profiles rather than documentation.

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 frames usage as 'requested by the user,' which tells the agent this is a user-driven lookup rather than a proactive step, and the two-mode behavior implies when to pass a name. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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