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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden; it adds the useful detail that workspace prompts require a workspace_id (and is_custom flag) rather than being universally visible. It says nothing about pagination, catalog size limits, or per-workspace access restrictions, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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?

One framing sentence followed by a two-item numbered mapping of request modes, front-loading the enum options and their conditions. Every line carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema alone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. The remaining gap is minor: no statement about whether workspace prompts are a separate catalog, paging, or error behavior when a prompt_id doesn't resolve.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description successfully compensates by assigning meaning to all five parameters: request modes, prompt_id for body fetch, workspace_id for scoping, is_custom for workspace prompts, and prompt_type as a menu filter. It stops short of naming valid prompt_type values or noting when is_custom can be omitted, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Browse the Microsoft Clarity prompt catalog') and then enumerates the two supported operations, so an agent knows exactly what surface this tool exposes. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tools (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), but the distinct resource makes the separation reasonably evident.

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 tells the agent which request value to pick and the conditions that go with each: pass workspace_id + prompt_type to filter the menu, and set is_custom=True + workspace_id for workspace prompts. There is no explicit 'do not use this when…' or sibling-redirect guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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