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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the return value is a prompt template for tool-only clients, which is mild context but does not disclose error behavior or template content. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence with no filler, and the verb and object appear immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter with rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits the meaning of `name` and does not refer the agent to ata_list_prompts for discovering valid prompt names, leaving a small but real gap.

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 0% and the description never mentions the `name` parameter; only the schema's property name suggests it identifies the prompt. With low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining valid values or pointing to a way to discover them, and it does not.

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 clear verb ('Return') and resource ('one ATA MCP prompt template'), and the singular wording distinguishes it from the sibling ata_list_prompts. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 'for tool-only clients' provides a hint about target usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative ata_list_prompts for listing available prompts. An agent cannot reliably decide when this tool should be selected.

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