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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond those: returned artifacts are summaries only, full prompt text is excluded, and api_key handling differs between the public endpoint and /mcp/mcp. This meaningfully informs agent expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose first, then filters, sort options, return behavior, and auth nuance. Every sentence adds useful information, and the critical limitation about missing full prompt text is stated prominently.

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?

With an output schema present, no required parameters, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: what is returned, how to filter and sort, how to get the full prompt, and the auth distinction between endpoints.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains category and domain_id as filters, details sort options including the default and ordering, and clarifies api_key optionality. Only `limit` is left unexplained, but its schema default and obvious meaning reduce the gap.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse public judge-prompt artifacts shared by other users.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and sets it apart from sibling list/discovery tools, which target rankings, competitions, or domains rather than judge-prompt artifacts.

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 gives clear context for use: browse summaries, then call `aimrank_fork_judge_prompt` or the REST GET when the full prompt is needed. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus every sibling, but the follow-up routing and endpoint-specific auth note provide practical usage guidance.

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