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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: it enumerates what the prompt template contains (connection message, first message, context, follow-up sequence). It does not mention not-found behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the return contents following immediately. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly the burden it should carry for a simple read tool. Only the not-found/error semantics are unaddressed, which is acceptable for a single-parameter read.

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 promptId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Get') and resource ('one LinkedNav prompt template by ID'), and the singular 'one ... by ID' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling list tool get_prompts and from the write siblings create_prompt/update_prompt/delete_prompt. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening 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 description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as get_prompts for listing. The contrast with the list tool is left entirely to inference.

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