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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape context, notably that variables are surfaced with sample values and that deployment state is included. It omits behavior on a missing prompt_id, and whether draft or deployed version is returned.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the most important payload (model, settings, messages) and then the secondary details. No filler, and every clause maps to something the caller would otherwise have to discover by running it.

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 effectively serves as the return-value contract, and it does that well for a simple one-parameter read. What is missing is edge-case behavior (not-found handling, draft vs deployed selection), which matters for a lookup tool keyed by an ID.

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 coverage is 100% and the single prompt_id is documented as coming from search_prompts, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the identifier itself, making baseline 3 appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: model, settings, messages, variables with sample values, and deployment. That is specific enough to distinguish a prompt-read from siblings like get_template or get_run. It loses a point because it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the 'read/retrieve' action is only inferred from the name and title.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as search_prompts (which the schema references) or get_template. The only hint about the calling flow lives in the schema's 'From search_prompts', not in the description.

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