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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered upstream. The description then only restates that this is a listing operation and adds no behavioral detail such as pagination, result ordering, or whether filters combine with AND/OR — nothing beyond what the structured fields 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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the read-only annotations cover safety. But with four undocumented parameters and a non-obvious enum pair (prompt_tags_operator), the description leaves real gaps an agent would need to close before calling 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 0%, so the description must carry the load for four parameters and does not. It never mentions the status filter, the prompt_tags list, or the is_any_of/has_all_of operator, leaving the agent to guess that the operator only makes sense when prompt_tags is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (prompts), plus a helpful gloss that prompts are search queries tracked for a website, which disambiguates from generic 'prompt' meanings. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby siblings such as get_prompt_tags or get_prompt_discovery_runs, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name that this is the unfiltered enumeration of prompts, while update_prompt/set_prompts_status/create_prompts cover other operations.

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