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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses what data is returned (prompt text, use case, how it works, tags, prerequisites). It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a simple read operation the description is sufficiently transparent. It could be improved by explicitly stating it is read-only, but the name and content imply that.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect in the result. The sibling tools provide additional context for differentiating similar tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear example (e.g., p-1). The tool description adds meaning by listing the output fields that correspond to the parameter, helping the agent understand what it will receive. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a single prompt by its ID', and lists specific fields returned (prompt text, use case, how it works, tags, prerequisites). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_prompts_by_category by emphasizing retrieval by a single ID.

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 usage when a specific prompt ID is known, which is appropriate for this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide sufficient context for differentiation. A slight improvement would be to add direct guidance, but the current level is adequate.

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