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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: exact sort order, returned fields, USD-cent pricing, null price semantics, store-price fields, Workshop subscriber counts, flags, and cache/refresh timing. It does not contradict the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then supplies useful return-field and freshness details. It is somewhat dense and repeats the title in the first sentence, but most of the length earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 fully covers what the response contains, how it is ordered, pricing units and null values, and data freshness. It gives an agent enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents shortname, page, and per_page. The description reinforces that shortname identifies one base item but adds no additional syntax or pagination semantics beyond the schema.

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 definition clearly states that it returns all skins for one base item, with pricing, and describes the ordering. It distinguishes the item-scoped list from broader skin tools implicitly via 'for an item' and the Skins tab comparison, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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 implied by the item-scoped scope: use this when you have one item shortname and need its full skin list. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of browse_skins, search_skins, get_skin, or get_skin_price.

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