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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the mutation happens outside this call (a command is returned, nothing is written), that task authorization is a precondition, and that supporting files and licenses are retained. It does not explain the openWorldHint=true implication (network/registry reach) or the returned command's form, but it adds real context beyond 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 non-writing behavior. There is no waste, though the middle sentence's wording ("existing task authorization") is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and an open-world flag, the description should at least sketch what the returned command looks like and how id/agent/global shape it. As written, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call or know what it will get back.

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 0% for all three parameters; the description says nothing about `id` (skill id? listing id?), `agent`, or `global` (does it control install scope?), so the agent must guess. This is the same failure mode as the 0%-coverage low calibration example, where the description fails to compensate.

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?

"Return a command without writing files" implies a dry-run/planning operation, but the description never states what is being installed or that the returned command installs a skill for a given agent — that meaning is carried only by the name/title. It also does nothing to distinguish this from the read-heavy siblings (search_skills, read_skill), so an agent must infer its niche.

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?

"Follow existing task authorization before running the installer" is a prerequisite note, not usage guidance: it never says when to prefer this over just installing, nor names any alternative. There is only a weak implied use case (preview before writing files).

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