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 covered, and the description adds no behavioral context on top of that. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing/foreign-workspace ID, permission requirements, or what the returned 'details' comprise.

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 nine-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated from 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 simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented params and safety annotations, the essentials are present. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could have said what 'details' are returned, which would help an agent decide between this and list_prompts.

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 the workspaceId description even routes the caller to list_workspaces, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or relational meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific prompt by ID'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_prompts, get_brand, or get_workspace, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as list_prompts (for enumeration) or run_prompt (for execution). The phrase 'by ID' weakly implies the caller must already hold an ID, but nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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