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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantive detail about what the response contains (install prompt, setup steps, safety notes) plus a comparative note that this tool omits raw SKILL.md and setup questions. It does not mention any rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only getter that is minor.

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, zero filler. The contents listing comes first and the alternative-tool routing second, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return content, and it does so concretely. What it omits is output shape or size (e.g., whether the prompt is a string or structured object), which would help an agent plan downstream formatting.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the slug example and the platform enum. The description only echoes that the prompt is tailored to 'the chosen assistant,' adding nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one skill's install kit') and enumerates the returned artifacts (install prompt with SKILL.md, setup steps, data-access and safety notes). It also names the closely related sibling install_skill, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer install_skill, which also returns the raw SKILL.md and setup questions.' That gives a clear alternative and the reason to choose it. It stops short of stating an affirmative 'use this when you only need the install prompt' condition, so it is strong but not fully bidirectional.

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