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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the playbook contains ordered tool calls and filters, inputs can be omitted to get a prompt for the user, and the operation is free.

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 front-loaded with the core action and output, then covers invocation details and the omitted-input case. It is appropriately sized with no redundant sentences.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the playbook contains, how to identify the skill, and what happens when inputs are omitted. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that a human-readable skill name can be passed and close matches will resolve, while also reinforcing the omit-inputs behavior for the inputs parameter.

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: get one skill's step-by-step playbook, including ordered tool calls and filters. It distinguishes this from list_skills by making clear this retrieves a single playbook rather than a list.

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 explains how to supply skill_id from list_skills or a user-provided skill name with close-match resolution. It also says omitting inputs produces a list of questions for the user. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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