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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the cost/credit profile and the fact that results come from a scheduled pipeline comparing against a previous check. That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about pagination or result volume for a list endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource, and both clauses earn their place — the em-dash definition and the cost note are each useful. Dense but not padded; the embedded definition slightly interrupts the core statement.

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?

A read-only, single-parameter list tool with no output schema; the description conveys what the returned items represent and that querying them is free. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, though return shape is left implicit.

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 100% and the single required projectId is documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_projects. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 (Lists) and resource (a project's tracked prompts) and then defines what a tracked prompt actually is — prompts re-run through explore_ai_prompt's answer pipeline and diffed against the prior check. That definition separates it from sibling list_* tools and from get_tracked_prompt_trend without needing the schema.

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 'FREE: database only, no credits spent' note gives a clear, decision-relevant reason to prefer this over the credit-consuming explore_ai_prompt, and the mention of the schedule/diff lineage frames the context. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when X, use Y when Z' routing statement, so it is not a 5.

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