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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the prompt TEXT is only returned when an API key is supplied. This is critical for an agent to know before calling, as it affects the outcome. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT return (the full text without a key). It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but the disclosed conditional behavior is significant and goes beyond a simple 'get' description.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return attributes, followed by the critical conditional about the API key. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values and the key behavioral condition (API key requirement for prompt text). It doesn't describe the exact response format, but with no output schema and a simple metadata read, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not specifying what happens if the id is invalid or the prompt doesn't exist.

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% and the only parameter (id) is described as 'Prompt id from search_prompts.' The description reinforces this by implying the id identifies a specific prompt. It adds a bit of context by explaining what the tool returns for that id, but the schema already covers the parameter's meaning. Baseline 3, with a slight bump because the description clarifies the id's provenance (from search_prompts) and ties it to the tool's purpose.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a single PromptFrenzy prompt and enumerates the specific attributes returned (what it makes, model, cost, inputs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_prompts (which finds prompts) and get_generation (which likely retrieves a generation result) by focusing on reading one prompt's metadata. The verb 'Read' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need details about a specific prompt, and the id parameter references search_prompts, indicating a workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the reference to search_prompts provide clear context. A small gap: it doesn't explicitly say 'use search_prompts to find the id first' as a directive.

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