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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is established and the description is consistent with it. Beyond that it adds little behavioral context — no note on result volume, pagination, or what happens when a prompt_id doesn't exist. With annotations plus an output schema covering returns, a 3 is appropriate.

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 followed by a two-item numbered list that front-loads the discriminator (`request`) and the args for each branch. Zero filler; every clause maps to a parameter decision.

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?

Five params with a required discriminator, but the description explains the branch structure well and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid prompt_id, unbounded prompt_type strings) for full completeness.

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 largely does: it explains both enum values of `request` and ties workspace_id, prompt_type, prompt_id, and is_custom to the branch where each applies. It doesn't say what valid prompt_type strings look like, which is the one real remaining gap.

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 prompt catalog") and then splits that resource into two named operations, menu listing vs. prompt_details fetching. It doesn't differentiate itself from the siblings (execute_action, query_contexts, query_data), though none of them obviously overlaps with catalog browsing.

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?

Gives explicit conditional routing keyed to the required `request` parameter: use 'menu' to list, use 'prompt_details' to fetch a body, and names the extra args each branch needs. It stops short of saying when this tool is the wrong choice or how it relates to the sibling query tools.

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