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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the browse/fetch language, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations — that 'menu' surfaces public/system prompts and that custom prompts require a paired flag and workspace id — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or failure behavior for a missing prompt_id.

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 numbered lines after a single framing sentence; the mode-to-parameter mapping is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 no explanation, and the description covers both request branches and most parameters. Remaining shortfall is the unexplained prompt_type and no note on conditional parameter requirements between the two modes.

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 schema coverage at 0% the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: both enum values of request, the role of prompt_id, the is_custom + workspace_id pairing, and prompt_type as an optional menu filter. The one gap is that prompt_type is never explained (no accepted values or effect), and the description doesn't state that prompt_id is effectively mandatory for the prompt_details branch.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Browse the DataForSEO prompt catalog') and then enumerates the two supported request modes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), but the naming and read-only catalog scope make the domain clear.

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 request value is given an explicit condition: 'menu' to list, 'prompt_details' to fetch a body by prompt_id, plus the is_custom=True + workspace_id combination for workspace prompts. That is actionable routing between the two modes, though there are no stated exclusions relative to the sibling tools.

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