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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a browsing tool, and the description adds the mode-dependent constraint that workspace prompts need is_custom plus workspace_id, which the annotations cannot convey. It says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., missing prompt_id), result limits, or pagination; with an output schema present, this is adequate but 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?

One framing sentence plus a two-line mode list, front-loaded with the identifying statement and free of filler. The numbered structure is scannable; minor redundancy in restating 'request=' before each value.

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, two-mode dispatch tool with an output schema, the description covers both branches and their key parameter dependencies, so an agent can select a mode correctly. Gaps are limited to edge cases (prompt_details without prompt_id, prompt_type value domain).

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 load, and it does for most fields: it explains both request enum values, ties prompt_id to prompt_details, and explains is_custom/workspace_id for workspace prompts, with prompt_type noted as an optional filter. Prompt_id's required-ness and the meaning of prompt_type values remain inferred.

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+resource ('Browse the Shopify prompt catalog') and enumerates its two operating modes. The purpose is unmistakable and clearly distinct from the generic siblings (execute_action, query_data, query_contexts), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 modes give concrete when-to-use guidance: 'menu' for listing, 'prompt_details' for fetching a body, plus the condition that workspace prompts require is_custom=True + workspace_id. No exclusions or fallback guidance against sibling tools are given, so it stops 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.