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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a single published skill, but does not disclose what happens if the slug does not exist, whether unpublished skills are accessible, authentication requirements, or the response format. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a getter.

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 one short sentence of six words, immediately front-loads the action (Get) and key qualifiers (single, published, by slug). Every word earns its place; there is no waste.

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 simple 1-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description is largely sufficient: it names the operation, the resource, the qualifier (published), and the lookup mechanism. It could be more complete by noting error behavior, but the low complexity means the description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 one parameter 'slug' with the description 'Public skill slug', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('a single published skill'), and specifies the lookup key ('by slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like browse_public_skills or list_skills, which imply listing/exploration.

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 through the phrase 'single published skill by slug': use this when you have a specific slug and want one published skill. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when browsing or listing skills) or alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

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