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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. The description does add genuinely new behavior: it returns null when no such prompt is visible to the caller, which signals scoped visibility/permission filtering rather than an error — useful beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scope distinction, then the return behavior. No filler or repetition beyond the brief 'Read-only' restatement.

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 no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and the null-case return, which is close to sufficient. It could go slightly further on the ambiguous id type and on what the body/template contains.

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% and the single required parameter is typed as integer-or-string with no explanation. The description only clarifies that prompt_id is an identifier ('by id') and does not resolve which type is expected or where the id comes from.

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 (read) and resource (a single saved prompt) scoped by id, and explicitly distinguishes the result from list metadata ('the full body/template, not just list metadata'). An agent can tell this apart from sibling list-style tools without inspecting any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'not just list metadata' suggests this is for when the full template body is needed, and the id requirement implies a prior listing step. However, it names no explicit alternative (e.g., save_prompt for writes) and gives no when-not conditions.

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