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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the account-scoping constraint; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the list is bounded, which is the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from omitting information an agent would need rather than from disciplined editing.

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 ideally indicate what a list entry contains and how paging works. Instead it leaves both undocumented, though the read-only, non-destructive nature of the call is fully covered by annotations, keeping the risk of misuse low.

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%: both `lang` (enum en/zh, default en) and `offset` (0-100000, default 0) are undocumented in the schema, and the description mentions neither. The presence of `offset` strongly implies pagination, yet the description does not confirm it or explain `lang`'s effect on results, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("List ... prompts") and narrows the scope to "this account's previously unlocked prompts", which distinguishes it from search_prompts and unlock_prompt. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 word "previously" implies this is a post-unlock enumeration rather than a discovery tool, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_prompts or get_prompt, and no mention of whether results are paginated or complete.

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