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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description's 'without running simulations' usefully adds that no execution/side effects occur. It does not mention that customerId requires superadmin privileges or what the analysis output contains, so it adds only modest context beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb, object, and disambiguating clause; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 three-parameter, read-only analysis tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what is analyzed and what kinds of results come back (weaknesses, recommendations). It could say more about how the optional promptId/customerId change the result, but nothing essential to calling it 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%, and each parameter (prompt, promptId, customerId) is already documented in the schema, including the superadmin note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Analyze'), a specific resource ('an agent's system prompt structure'), and the concrete outputs ('weaknesses', 'improvement recommendations'). The trailing 'without running simulations' also distinguishes it from the sibling simulate_agent at a glance.

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?

'Without running simulations' tells the agent this is a static, non-executing review, which contrasts it with simulate_agent and run-oriented siblings. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement, but the selection context is clear.

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