Get Full Skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the tool never raises a protocol error and instead returns an error object, and it shows the typical return shape with an example. The description repeats 'read-only and idempotent' near the end, which is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but the added error-handling context earns a solid score.

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 main purpose, followed by a concrete example, usage context, exclusions, and error behavior. It is slightly redundant—'Returns one named skill' restates the first sentence, and the read-only/idempotent claim mirrors the annotations—but overall it is dense and well organized with no wasted sentences.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the input source, the proper sequencing after preview_product, what it excludes, the output shape with an example, the error-handling contract, and that retrying is safe after correction. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return values. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, with both params already explained: slug comes from search_catalog and skill_name comes from preview_product's skills list. The description reinforces this with a typical input example but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter details.

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 description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Load one paid skill's complete instructions from a product.' It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is not for the free gateway skill (get_free_skill) and not for all skills at once (get_full_product). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

Explicit usage context is given: 'Use after preview_product has shown the skill list and the caller wants one specific paid skill.' It also names alternatives and exclusions clearly: 'Not for the free gateway skill...' and 'not for every skill at once (get_full_product).' This gives the agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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