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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns file contents, cannot write files, requires the caller to write at a path given in the reply, and that the installed skill becomes a command without restarting. That is well beyond the annotation set.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its file nature, then the post-call workflow, then the sibling pointer. No sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: file contents plus the path delivered in the reply. Combined with the install/restart behavior, nothing an agent needs to call and use it correctly is missing.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the list_skills provenance already in the schema, adding no new format or constraint detail. 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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (one of this workspace's skills) and output form (a SKILL.md file). It is clearly distinct from list_skills and update_skill, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

It routes the agent to list_skills for slugs and explains the install workflow that follows the call. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule, but the context is clear.

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