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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the return payload structure and the conditional nature of engine instructions ('if it has one'). It does not mention behavior for an invalid/unknown slug, which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that lists the returned components after the action, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned sections effectively substitutes for a return-value spec. Only failure handling for a bad slug is left unspecified.

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%, so the single parameter is already documented as a 'Skill slug from search_skills'. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (full method for one skill), then enumerates the payload contents: when to use it, steps, quality bar, engine instructions. This clearly separates it from discovery-oriented siblings, though it never names search_skills explicitly in the description itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema's parameter note ('Skill slug from search_skills') indicates the workflow is search-then-fetch. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion of alternatives like describe_engine in the description text.

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