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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents ('full version history and evaluations'), which is useful and beyond the schema, but it says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, pagination, or side effects. 'Get' implies a safe read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the payload description. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, and the description usefully names the returned data (version history, evaluations), partially compensating for the missing output schema. It does not mention tenant scoping or competing tools like RenderPrompt, but for a straightforward lookup it is largely sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents prompt_h as a 40-char hex hash and tenant_id as a tenant UUID. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or required/optional nuance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 gives a precise verb and resource: 'Get a prompt by hash ID.' It also names the returned payload (version history and evaluations), which sharpens the purpose beyond a generic lookup. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling RenderPrompt, which also operates on prompts.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative (RenderPrompt). The only usage signal is the implied read semantics of 'Get,' leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate versus rendering or summarizing a prompt.

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