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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful context beyond them: the no-argument listing behavior, that the payload is full guide text rather than a reference, that the same text is mirrored at a URL for file-installing clients, and the opaque note 'No plan gate; all plans.'

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-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently dense despite its length; each sentence after the first adds a distinct fact (the two skills, the listing behavior, the external mirror). The trailing 'No plan gate; all plans.' is cryptic and slightly undercuts otherwise tight structure.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so adequately: full guide text when a skill is named, a body-less list when omitted. Format details (e.g., markdown vs. structured) are not specified, but the agent has enough to call and consume it correctly.

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% and the enum is documented, so the schema baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what each enum value actually produces (planner = plan document plus task tree; autonomous = claim/execute/hand-back), which is meaning the schema's bare value names do not convey.

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 (returns the full text of an agent skill) and immediately defines what that content is: a guide covering cold-start, tool selection, and conventions. It names both enum values and describes the job each one serves, so an agent understands the tool's scope without opening the 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?

Gives clear invocation context — omitting the argument lists both skills without bodies — and explains what each skill is for (planning vs. executing). It does not, however, route against plausible siblings like agent_bootstrap, read_agent_brief, or describe_capabilities, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over them.

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