Get Free Skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial non-annotation behavior: it returns exactly one skill chosen automatically, requires no plan, never raises a protocol error on bad input, returns a structured error object instead, and is safe to retry after correcting input. This goes well beyond what annotations already provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most sentences earn their place: use case, sibling comparison, error contract, and retry safety are all relevant. Minor redundancy exists in 'FREE.' and restating read-only/idempotent hints that the annotations already encode, so a small trim would make it even tighter.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete: it covers input source, a typical request/response shape, the exact selection behavior, the paid-plan boundary, error handling, and idempotent retry safety. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 slug's type, source ('exactly as returned by search_catalog'), and an example. The description's typical-input/output example illustrates the behavior but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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?

First sentence states a specific verb, 'load', a specific resource, 'a product's free gateway skill', and the deliverable, 'complete instructions.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_full_skill by saying it is not for the product's other skills, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 states when to use it: 'Use when the caller wants usable instructions immediately.' It also gives the exclusion: other skills need get_full_skill with a skill_name and a paid plan. It even points to search_catalog for the correct slug, leaving no ambiguity about prerequisites or alternatives.

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