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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a catalog read, and the description adds scope context (public/system prompts vs. workspace-scoped custom prompts, summary vs. full-text detail). However, the per-operation 'Returns:' lines largely restate what the output schema already covers, and nothing is said about pagination, ordering, or what happens when prompt_id or workspace_id is invalid or mismatched.

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 numbered, bulleted structure is front-loaded and each operation's parameter recipe is scannable at a glance. The trailing 'Returns:' lines are partly redundant with the output schema and could be trimmed, but overall the text is compact and earns its space.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description supplies enough to invoke all four operations correctly, and the existence of an output schema means return values need not be spelled out. The main remaining gap is the unexplained duplication between is_custom and prompt_type and the absence of guidance for error/empty cases.

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 carries the full burden and does most of the work: it defines 'menu' vs. 'prompt_details', states that prompt_id is the prompt to fetch, and explains that workspace_id scopes custom prompts. It never explains the relationship between the redundant-looking prompt_type='custom' and is_custom=True paths, nor what other prompt_type values are valid, leaving residual 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Access Google Sheets prompt catalog') and then enumerates four distinct operations with their request values, so an agent immediately knows what the tool retrieves. It does not relate itself to siblings (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 operations is paired with the exact parameter combination that selects it (request='menu' vs. request='prompt_details' + prompt_id + is_custom), which is effectively a when-to-use map for intra-tool selection. There is no guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus the sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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