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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it. Beyond that it adds useful per-mode parameter behavior (which fields apply to workspace prompts), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how large the catalog can be. With annotations covering safety, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.

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 catalog purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a tight numbered list that maps each mode to its parameters. No filler and no repetition of the title or 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 values needn't be described, and the readOnly annotation covers mutability. What's covered — mode selection and per-mode parameters — is the right material; only prompt_type semantics and the is_custom/menu interaction are 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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it maps request enum values to operations and ties prompt_id, is_custom, workspace_id, and prompt_type to their respective modes. The main gap is prompt_type, whose allowed values and effect are never explained, and it's unclear whether is_custom also applies to the 'menu' request.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse the LinkedIn Ads prompt catalog') and then enumerates the two operations it supports, so an agent knows exactly what class of action this performs. The sibling tools (execute_action, query_data, query_contexts) are unrelated enough that explicit differentiation isn't required, which keeps this at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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 two numbered branches effectively define when to use each mode: 'menu' for listing public/system prompts, 'prompt_details' for fetching a body by prompt_id. It also gives the precondition for workspace prompts (is_custom=True + workspace_id). No explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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