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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the useful detail that output is markdown, but it does not discuss error behavior or what happens if an invalid name is supplied. This is adequate but not rich.

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 stating the action and output format, followed by a scannable list of names. The list duplicates the schema enum, but the description remains compact and free of 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?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, safety annotations, an output schema, and a description that states the return format. An agent has all the information needed to select a valid skill and understand what the tool returns.

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 the parameter already has an enum, required status, description, and example. The tool description only repeats the list of valid names, adding no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Load a Protocol workflow skill as markdown.' It also enumerates every valid skill name, making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinct from list_skills, which lists skills rather than loads one.

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 implies usage by naming concrete skills and the schema notes that the name comes from list_skills, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not distinguish when get_skill should be preferred over sibling lookup tools like get_module_playbook.

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