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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description isn't obligated to argue non-destructiveness. It adds the return shape per operation, but that duplicates the output schema, and it says nothing about pagination, ordering, error cases (e.g., unknown prompt_id), or workspace access requirements.

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?

Numbered operations with parameter-and-return pairs are front-loaded and scannable, which suits a multi-mode tool. A few lines are marginally redundant with the output schema, but nothing is wasted enough to hurt comprehension.

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 five parameters at 0% schema coverage, an output schema present, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description does the necessary work of mapping every parameter to a mode. What's missing is edge-case behavior and any statement of scope relative to the sibling query tools.

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 the parameter burden and it largely does: it explains prompt_type='custom' plus workspace_id for custom listing, prompt_id for detail lookups, and is_custom=True for custom detail retrieval. Gaps remain — it never enumerates valid prompt_type values beyond 'custom' or clarifies whether is_custom is redundant with prompt_type.

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 the resource (postgresql prompt catalog) and enumerates four specific operations keyed by request values, so an agent knows exactly what capability the tool provides. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), which is the only clarity gap.

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 mode is paired with the exact parameter combination that selects it (request='menu' vs request='prompt_details' with prompt_id/is_custom/workspace_id), which is effectively in-tool routing guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer this catalog over the sibling query tools, so no exclusions are stated.

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