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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add value. It does add that each mode's result is the available prompt set or the full text/details of one prompt, but says nothing about access requirements for custom workspace prompts, result size, or truncation. Adequate but thin beyond the annotations.

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 four-mode list is front-loaded with the parameter combination that triggers each mode, and every line maps to a real invocation path. The bullet and indentation formatting is slightly heavier than needed but nothing is redundant or padding.

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 the description needn't document return shapes, yet it still gives a one-line 'Returns' hint for each mode, which is helpful for mode selection. Combined with the explicit parameter-to-mode mapping, an agent has what it needs to invoke any of the four operations correctly; only workspace/authorization context for custom prompts is missing.

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 burden, and it largely does: it discloses both request enum values, the literal prompt_type='custom' value, the meaning of is_custom=True for custom detail lookups, and that workspace_id identifies the workspace. It does not state the default/omitted behavior for the optional null-defaulted fields, which is the remaining 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?

The opening sentence names the resource (crawler prompt catalog) and the tool's shape as a 4-operation dispatcher, then each numbered mode pairs a concrete verb (List, Get details) with its resource. An agent can tell this is a read-only prompt lookup, distinct from the crawler_* generation/checker siblings. It stops short of 5 only because the umbrella phrase 'access crawler prompt catalog' is generic until the bullets clarify it.

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 of the four modes states the exact request/parameter combination that selects it, e.g. request='prompt_details', prompt_id=<int>, is_custom=True, workspace_id=<int>, which is precisely the routing guidance a dispatcher needs. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like execute_action or query_contexts, and no statement of when not to use it.

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