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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the menu mode is scoped to public/system prompts, and workspace prompts require the is_custom + workspace_id combination — a non-obvious requirement an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

A one-line purpose followed by a two-item numbered breakdown of the modes — zero filler, front-loaded, and the mode structure mirrors the enum in the schema.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers mode selection plus the workspace-scoping prerequisite. Minor incompleteness remains around prompt_type values and whether workspace_id implies any permission requirement.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it maps request values to behaviors and explains prompt_id, workspace_id, prompt_type, and is_custom roles. The gap is prompt_type, which is named but never given accepted values or effect.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Browse the ads prompt catalog') and immediately enumerates the two request modes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool surfaces. Sibling tools (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data) are far enough in domain that a single clause of differentiation isn't strictly needed, but none is given.

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?

Explicitly routes between the two modes: 'menu' for listing, 'prompt_details' for fetching a body, with the triggering condition ('Set is_custom=True + workspace_id for workspace prompts'). No guidance on when to pick this over the sibling query_* tools, so it stops short of full alternatives coverage.

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