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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (verbatim prompt, model, result media, like/view counts, and a studio link that preloads the card), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload as a compact list. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information and the id source via schema. It lacks any note on failure behavior for an unknown id, which is the only notable gap.

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 100% and the single id parameter is documented with its source (search_prompts or trending_prompts). The description adds only 'by id' and no additional format, prefix, or validity detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch one community prompt card by id') and then enumerates exactly what the card contains, so the agent knows what it gets back. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_prompts and trending_prompts, which return collections rather than a single card.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this is the single-item retrieval path after a search, and the id parameter's schema note points at search_prompts/trending_prompts as the source. However, the description itself never states when to use this instead of a sibling, what to do if the id is unknown, or any prerequisite. Usage is only implied.

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