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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the notable behavior that `include` expands the parent monitor/project/organization chain, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or the response shape otherwise.

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 short sentences with the fetch action front-loaded and zero filler. The optional include behavior is correctly relegated to the second sentence.

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 2-param read with no output schema, the description covers the input behavior but does not describe what a fetched prompt looks like or what happens when the id does not exist. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the whitelisted `include` values. The description restates the include-expansion effect without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

'Fetch a single prompt by its numeric id' pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and implies the singular-fetch role against the list-prompts-tool sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting that sibling, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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 only implied by 'single prompt' – an agent can infer you call this when you already have an id rather than when browsing. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-to-prefer-list-prompts-tool is stated.

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