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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds per-operation return semantics (all prompts vs. full text of a single prompt) and the required parameter gating for each variant. It stays silent on scoping behavior such as whether custom prompts are visible without workspace_id, or what happens when prompt_id is omitted — minor gaps against an already-declared read-only profile.

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?

The numbered, bulleted layout is front-loaded and scannable, with the request enum value leading each operation. Slightly more text than strictly needed since the 'Returns:' lines partly duplicate what the output schema already provides.

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 5-parameter, dual-mode read tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation matrix and parameter combos well. Missing pieces are error/edge behavior for the custom-prompt branch and clarification of the is_custom vs. prompt_type relationship, which an agent would need to call it reliably.

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 carries the full parameter burden, and it does document all four optional parameters with concrete example values. The notable gap is the unexplained redundancy between is_custom=True and prompt_type='custom', plus the absence of any other accepted prompt_type values.

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 names the resource (Airtable prompt catalog) and enumerates four concrete operations (list public, list custom, get public details, get custom details). An agent can immediately tell this is about prompts, not data or actions. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the siblings (query_data, execute_action), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Each operation lists the exact parameter combination that selects it ('request=menu' alone vs. plus prompt_type='custom' and workspace_id), which is effectively when-to-use guidance for the two request values. What it lacks is any exclusion or fallback guidance — e.g., what to do if the workspace_id is unknown, or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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