Get Full Skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces these traits with 'Every call is read-only and idempotent'. It adds valuable extra behavior by detailing the error handling pattern: 'on invalid, missing, or malformed input... returns {"error": ...}' rather than raising a protocol error, which is not covered by 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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then gives a concrete example, error behavior, and a safety note. Every sentence adds valuable information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is fully complete for this tool: it explains the purpose, provides a typical input/output example, documents error handling, and covers read-only/idempotent behavior. The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't elaborate on return values or security, making it comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (slug and skill_name) clearly defined. The description only provides an example input without adding meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Load one paid skill's complete instructions from a product', which specifies the verb (load), resource (one paid skill's instructions), and source (a product). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_free_skill by explicitly noting 'PREMIUM (paid plan)' and 'paid skill', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context by indicating this is for paid skills and shows a typical input/output, implying usage for retrieving full skill instructions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_free_skill or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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