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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return content — full text, metadata, and deployment targets ('where it runs') — which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and selector first. The trailing enumeration of runtime environments (chat app, pasted code, web tool, coding agent) is somewhat padded and reads like output detail rather than selection guidance.

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 full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what comes back and what the selector is. The remaining gap is discoverability — nothing tells the agent where slugs come from (search_prompts) or what a lookup miss returns.

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 slug parameter is already documented with pattern and length constraints. The description's 'by its slug' adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch the full text and metadata of a single published prompt') with the key selector ('by its slug'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_prompts. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the singular-by-slug scope 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?

Usage is only implied: fetch when you already know the slug. There is no explicit 'use search_prompts first to obtain a slug' routing, no exclusion of list_stages, and no note about what happens if the slug is unknown.

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