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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the content type returned (procedural instructions, domain workflow, reference files) and the special _core payload, but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or what a returned file looks like.

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 tightly packed sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, then the prerequisite, then the special-case value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, sequencing, and the critical _core special case. It could be slightly stronger by describing the returned structure (workflow text vs. reference files), but 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, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining what skill_id='_core' retrieves, which the schema only lists as an opaque example. The file parameter's purpose is left to the schema, which already documents it fully.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('procedural instructions and domain reference files for a legal skill'), which is clearly disjoint from the act/section/constitution siblings. An agent can tell it apart from the other fifteen tools without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit sequencing ('Call this tool after checking list_skills') that names the prerequisite tool and the condition for calling. It also carves out a special case, skill_id='_core', for global legal reasoning/citation rules, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is the right one.

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