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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the return is a step-by-step guide string, which is redundant with the existing output schema and says nothing about formatting, platform fallbacks or whether guidance depends on vetting state.

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 tool purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, but the bilingual restatement and a full Args/Returns block duplicate content already in the schema and output schema, adding length without new information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and which dimensions it varies along. Only the default-platform behavior and post-discovery usage context are left implicit.

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 the platform enum values are enumerated in the schema itself, so the description's Args block restates rather than adds. It does not explain the default platform behavior (OpenClaw) or when a specific platform should be chosen over the default — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get step-by-step installation instructions') plus the scope ('for a skill on a specific platform'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_skill (skill metadata), download_skill (fetching files) and list_platforms (enumeration).

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 only implied by the tool's name and purpose — an agent can infer it is for obtaining setup steps after finding a skill, but there is no explicit 'use when', no prerequisites (e.g., must the skill already be vetted/downloaded?) and no mention of alternatives such as download_skill or validate_compatibility.

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