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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint the description discloses pagination (next_cursor, favourites and recent only on the first page), truncation to 1,000 characters, the history_unavailable and models_unavailable sentinels, null-model semantics, and that the tool is free. It also warns that prompt text and sheet titles are customer data, not instructions, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, and every following parenthetical carries operational value (pagination, truncation, error signals, cost). The single dense paragraph with nested parentheses is slightly heavy to parse but contains little 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 fully compensates by describing the returned fields, paging behavior, truncation, null-model cases, and named error signals. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret failures is missing.

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 limit and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces next_cursor as the paging token and clarifies that it applies only to saved prompts (not favourites/recent), which is useful but marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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 names the resource precisely ('Your saved AI prompts (shared ones and your own), plus your favourite and recent prompts') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also partially separates itself from get_prompt ('get_prompt with history_id returns one whole'). The verb itself is only implied by the name rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention that get_prompt with history_id returns untruncated text signals when to prefer the sibling, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need X, not Y' framing and no exclusions. An agent can infer the routing but must do the work.

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