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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds two things they cannot convey: the call is 'Free' (cost transparency) and returned prompt text/sheet titles are customer data, not instructions (prompt-injection caution). It does not state what happens if neither or both ids are supplied, which is the remaining behavioral gap for a tool with zero required parameters.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and split by retrieval mode; every clause carries information. The telegraphic 'Free.' fragment is efficient but slightly clipped, and the mutual-exclusivity rule is only implied by the 'or'.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with fully described parameters, the description covers what is returned (prompt text and sheet titles), the id provenance, and cost. Only the both-ids-supplied case is left undefined, a minor omission given the low complexity.

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%, so both uuid parameters are already documented, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it establishes that prompt_id and history_id are alternative lookup modes rather than combinable filters, and that history_id addresses favourites/recents specifically. That either/or semantics is absent from the schema, which simply lists both as optional.

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 ('One prompt in full') and immediately splits the two retrieval modes: a saved prompt by prompt_id versus a favourite/recent one by history_id. An agent can distinguish it from list_prompts (which supplies the ids) and from save_prompt/delete_prompt without opening any 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 ties both id types back to their source ('from list_prompts'), which tells the agent to enumerate first and fetch second. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over preview_prompt or get_history, so alternatives are implied rather than spelled out.

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