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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no ordering, pagination/cap behavior, or what happens when no results match — leaving the burden on the schema.

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 zero filler words. It is efficient, though bordering on too terse to be 'appropriately sized' for a five-parameter 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?

With no output schema, the description should at least signal pagination or result shape, but it does not. Combined with complete schema coverage and safe read annotations, the omission is a gap rather than a failure.

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%, including the enum for status and the 'get from list_workspaces' hint for workspaceId, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's generic 'optional filters' adds no detail beyond it, making 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List prompts') that is unambiguous about the operation and entity. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_prompt or create_prompts, but the verb 'list' plus the plural resource makes the read/enumerate intent clear.

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?

The phrase 'with optional filters' hints at narrowing results but never says when to use this tool instead of get_prompt (single retrieval) or how the filters combine. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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