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

The description discloses in detail what the tool returns: connection instructions, header and query-param configuration methods, conceptual model (destinations, borrowed-token), and example client configs. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context about the content and structure of the response, fully leveraging the absence of an output schema.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Returns connection instructions') and then enumerates the specific topics. The second sentence provides a clear usage directive. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure guides the reader from what it does to when to use it.

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 help/discovery tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the main topics an agent needs to understand Prism's connection model and points to example configurations. Nothing essential is missing for an agent deciding whether to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs, so no gap exists.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Returns connection instructions' and then enumerates the specific content areas (upstream MCP server setup, query-param config keys, destinations, borrowed-token model, example client configs). It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the entry point for first-time discovery, so an agent can clearly distinguish it from the other prism_* tools.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Start here if you are an agent discovering Prism for the first time.' This provides clear context for when to select this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tool names imply that other tools serve specific needs, and the 'start here' directive is a strong routing signal.

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