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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety, but 'Does not spend credits' adds a cost/destructive-side-effect distinction that annotations cannot express. It also discloses the conditional return shape (full prompt withheld unless unlocked), which is meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the key scoping/cost facts are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 does outline the returned fields, which is good. But it is ambiguous about what happens when the prompt is locked (error vs. preview-only response), and it says nothing about the 'lang' parameter, leaving a real gap for a 2-param read tool.

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% for two parameters, and the description mentions neither 'id' nor 'lang'. The id pattern and the en/zh language default are left entirely to the schema, and the description adds no guidance on which language variant is used or what makes an id valid.

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 (Read) and the exact payload returned: preview, source/license, and full prompt. The gating clause 'only if already unlocked' implicitly distinguishes it from unlock_prompt and list_unlocked_prompts, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Only if already unlocked' and 'Does not spend credits' give a clear positive condition and clearly contrast with the credit-spending unlock_prompt path. It stops short of explicitly naming unlock_prompt or stating what to do when the prompt is locked.

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