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

The annotations already establish that this tool is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real value beyond that by stating what is returned relative to list_prompts (the full instruction text) and by placing the read in a downstream workflow. It doesn't say what happens with an invalid or missing id, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded with the identity of the tool and what it returns. The trailing workflow guidance is slightly packed into the same breath but still earns its place by telling the agent what to do with the result.

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 read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return content and next steps. It is nearly complete; only the error behavior for a bad id is unstated.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including that the id is a uuid sourced from list_prompts or list_inspiration. The description repeats that provenance without adding format or validation details, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reads one Social Prompt by id') and gives the exact scope of what is returned: the same fields as list_prompts plus 'prompt', its full instructions. That also distinguishes it from list_prompts/list_inspiration, which are only the source of the id.

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?

It points to where the id comes from (list_prompts or list_inspiration) and describes a workflow: follow the prompt with the user's topic and voice, check against each network's limits, then save_draft. It has no explicit when-not-to-use clause, but for a single-record fetch by id, the context is sufficiently clear.

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