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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's main contribution is the conditional rule that workspace prompts require is_custom=True plus workspace_id — genuinely useful behavioral context not derivable from the schema. Beyond that it says nothing about error behavior, result limits, or what happens when prompt_details is called without a prompt_id.

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?

Two lines: a single-sentence purpose followed by a compact two-item enumeration of modes. Front-loaded, zero filler, and the enum values are mirrored exactly so the agent can map text to schema instantly.

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 explained, and the description adequately covers all five zero-documented parameters plus the conditional workspace flag. It stops short of complete because prompt_type's domain and the required-parameter interplay for 'prompt_details' remain 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it mostly does, naming the purpose of all five parameters (request modes, prompt_id for body fetch, is_custom + workspace_id for workspace scope, prompt_type for filtering the menu). The gap is prompt_type, whose accepted values and effect are never specified.

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 WordPress prompt catalog') and then decomposes it into two clearly named modes, 'menu' and 'prompt_details', each with a stated outcome. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the siblings (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), so an agent must infer that this is the discovery step rather than a data query.

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 numbered list explains what each request value does, which implies when to pick 'menu' (to list) versus 'prompt_details' (to fetch a body). But there is no explicit routing advice against the sibling tools, no stated prerequisite workflow (e.g. list first, then fetch by prompt_id), and no exclusions.

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