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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses that one mode returns a listing while the other returns a full prompt body, and it surfaces the non-obvious coupling that workspace prompts need both is_custom=True and workspace_id. It doesn't cover pagination, listing size, or error behavior when prompt_id is wrong, so it's not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a two-item mode list; every clause carries information an agent needs to pick a request value. No filler or restatement of the 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?

With an output schema present, return formatting needn't be described, and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gaps — valid prompt_type values and the implicit prompt_id requirement per mode — are minor but real for a 5-parameter tool.

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 must compensate and largely does — it explains the meaning of request's two enum values, prompt_id, workspace_id, prompt_type, and is_custom. The gap is prompt_type: no allowed values or examples are given for a free-form string, and it isn't stated that prompt_id is effectively required for the prompt_details mode.

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+resource ('Browse the ads prompt catalog') and enumerates the two operations the tool supports. An agent can tell exactly what domain this touches; the only shortfall is that it doesn't differentiate from the listed siblings (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), though those are unrelated rather than competing tools.

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 numbered list gives clear conditional guidance: request='menu' for listing, request='prompt_details' for fetching a body, with the extra condition that workspace prompts require is_custom=True + workspace_id. There are no explicit exclusions or tie-breakers, but the mode-selection context is genuinely usable.

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