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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context, which it does by disclosing that results are paginated previews rather than full content. That preview-versus-full distinction is the key behavioral fact for this tool and is stated plainly.

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 no filler; the pagination/preview limitation comes first and the redirect to the sibling second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return-shape adequately. It falls short on the undocumented 'lang' filter, which an agent would have no way to know exists or affects results.

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%, so the description needs to carry parameter meaning. 'Cursor pagination' loosely maps to the 'after' parameter but gives no format or usage detail, and the 'lang' enum parameter (en/zh) is never mentioned anywhere in the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Browse all published prompts') and names the sibling get_prompt as the full-text alternative. It does not distinguish itself from search_prompts, so an agent cannot fully separate the two listing paths from this text 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?

It clearly routes the agent onward ('use get_prompt for free full text') and implies this is the browse-everything path versus a targeted lookup. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to search_prompts.

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