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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'read' implies a non-destructive operation, but the description does not elaborate on error handling, idempotency, or any side effects. Since it is a simple read operation, the primary behavior is clear, but the lack of explicit clarification about potential failures or returned data (beyond the output schema) leaves a gap. A 3 reflects adequate basic coverage without richer context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It wastes no words and is immediately actionable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, an output schema exists), the description is sufficient. It states the action and the URI input. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites beyond the URI source, but that is covered in the schema. The lack of error details is acceptable for a straightforward read tool, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The schema description for the single parameter `uri` already includes a concrete example and instruction to get URIs from `skills_list_tool`. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond paraphrasing the schema; it does not compensate further because the schema is already thorough.

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 ('read'), a clear resource ('product skill file'), and the exact input mechanism ('skill:// URI'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skills_list_tool, which lists skills, and the ledger_* family, which handles ledgers. An agent can immediately understand what action this performs.

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?

The description explicitly instructs obtaining valid URIs from `skills_list_tool`, which is a sibling tool, thus providing a clear workflow: list first, then read. This is a direct usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the referral to the list tool implies a prerequisite sequence that sufficiently routes the agent.

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