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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns three named fields and is ordered newest-first. It does not mention paging, limits, or result size, which keeps it below a 5.

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 the [read] tag and the resource before any field detail, with no filler sentences. The field-name run-on in backticks is dense to parse but every clause carries information.

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, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies the returned fields, ordering, filter semantics, and the sibling used for writes. Missing only pagination/volume behavior, which is minor here.

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 0% and the `kind` property has no description or enum, so the description carries the burden — and it does, enumerating the valid kinds (looks | outfits | poses | locations | profiles) and stating 'kind keeps one list only'. It omits what happens when `kind` is null/omitted, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 ('saved studio prompts / My prompts'), the caller scope ('the caller's own'), and the ordering ('newest first'). It also names the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish this from list_visibility_prompts or list_characters 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?

Explicitly routes the write side elsewhere: 'Put a text into a character with edit_character (character_looks / ...)', which tells the agent this tool is read-only retrieval. It does not say when to prefer this over list_characters or character_options, so no full exclusion set.

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