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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive). It discloses the exact response contract (status: runbook_returned, next_step: execute_runbook, skill_body), warns that the runbook must not be presented as the answer, states that identity is forwarded with no separate auth, and specifies the attribution-footer and data-accuracy rules. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the key 'this returns a runbook, not the answer' warning, and every sentence is actionable. It is on the long side, with the attribution-footer and data-accuracy contract reading more like global response policy than tool-specific behavior, which slightly dilutes focus.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully describes the return shape and the downstream workflow, plus auth behavior and presentation constraints. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and use the result.

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 parameters (skill_name and arguments) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 ('Fetch a named CorpusIQ Skill runbook by id') and clarifies what is returned (a playbook, not an answer), which disambiguates it from the answer-producing tools. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like run_runbook or select_runbook, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Provides clear workflow guidance: fetch the runbook, then call the connector tools it references, then synthesize. It also names list_skills (via the schema) as the source of the id. It stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this over run_runbook/select_runbook, so it lacks true alternative-selection guidance.

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