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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a browse/fetch tool. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation: that 'menu' returns public/system prompts, that 'prompt_details' returns the prompt body, and that custom prompts require workspace_id. It doesn't cover pagination, empty results, or error behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 one-line summary followed by two tight numbered modes tied directly to the request enum. Every sentence is functional. Minor ambiguity remains in the parenthetical for 'menu', but the structure is clean and scannable.

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-shape explanation isn't required, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The only real gap is prompt_type semantics. For a 5-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete.

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 burden. It explains request, prompt_id, is_custom, and workspace_id reasonably well, but prompt_type is mentioned only as an optional pass-through ('optionally pass workspace_id + prompt_type') with no indication of valid values or effect. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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 X Ads prompt catalog.' The two-mode enumeration clarifies the resource scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), but the 'prompt catalog' framing makes its domain evident.

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?

Explicitly maps each request value to its purpose ('menu' for listing, 'prompt_details' for fetching a body) and notes the is_custom + workspace_id condition for workspace prompts. Missing any guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool over this one, but the intra-tool routing is solid.

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