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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds value by explaining that the tool not only provides instructions but also lists reference files with token costs, and that further calls can retrieve specific files. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero filler. The second sentence efficiently conveys the extra capability (pulling reference files) without verbosity.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description fully covers the response contents (skill instructions + reference files with token costs) and the usage pattern (set part to a filename). Annotations confirm safety, so no further behavioral disclosure needed.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default behavior of 'part' (core SKILL.md) and the workflow of re-calling with a reference filename for deeper material, reinforcing the schema's meaning.

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 specifies the verb (load), the resource (skill instructions), and the exact scope ('ready to follow in this session with nothing installed'). It also distinguishes from siblings by clarifying that this returns the skill's actual instructions for immediate use, not just metadata like get_skill or get_journey.

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?

States when to use (to follow the skill's instructions) and explains the two-step workflow (load core, then call again with part set to a filename for deeper material). It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use or name sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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