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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond them: newest-first ordering and a hard 50-per-page cap with nextCursor paging. It stops short of describing response shape, but these details materially help an agent call it correctly.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then pagination, then the optional parameter. No filler and nothing buried.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, page size, cursor mechanics, and the optional include expansion. Combined with the safety annotations and fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining the intent of `include` (loading the parent monitor/project/organization chain) and the cursor flow, which enriches the raw whitelist the schema already provides.

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 with scope: 'List the prompts configured for a monitor.' This distinguishes it from analytics-style siblings but never explicitly names an alternative like list-prompt-analytics-tool or get-prompt-tool, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 by the purpose (listing prompts under a monitor), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no exclusions relative to sibling list/get tools. The pagination instructions describe how to call it, not when to choose it over alternatives.

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