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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully states what each operation returns (prompt list vs. full prompt text), but adds nothing about workspace scoping rules, missing prompt_id behavior, pagination limits, or permissions. Adequate but clearly not rich.

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 with the operation count, then broken into numbered blocks per mode — easy to scan and dispatch on. The repeated 'Returns:' lines are helpful for selection but partially duplicate the output schema, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 5-parameter dispatcher with a real cross-field dependency, the description covers every operation and its parameter recipe, and an output schema exists so return shapes need no further explanation. Only edge behavior (invalid prompt_id, missing workspace_id, empty results) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all meaning — and it does: it covers all five parameters, including the cross-field dependency (is_custom=True with workspace_id required for custom detail lookups) that is invisible in the flat schema. This is exactly the kind of value the description should add.

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?

Names a specific resource (Notion prompt catalog) and enumerates all four supported operations with their exact semantics. An agent can tell this is a prompt-listing/detail tool, distinct from the generic siblings (execute_action, query_data, query_contexts) without opening the schema.

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 operation block spells out the exact parameter combination that selects it (request='menu' vs request='prompt_details' + is_custom + workspace_id), which is effectively when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use the tool or pointing to a sibling for related work.

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