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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or call outcomes, leaving the agent to infer everything from the endpoint syntax.

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 a single line that simply restates the HTTP endpoint. This is under-specification, not conciseness, as it provides no informative content and does not earn its place.

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?

Given a 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about return values, errors, or operational behavior, making it impossible for an agent to select and invoke correctly based on this alone.

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?

With 7 parameters and only 57% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameters but does not. It offers zero detail about required fields like id, idempotency_key, or input_values, leaving the agent to rely solely on the sparse schema.

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 'POST /prompts/{id}/run' identifies the resource (prompt) and action (run) but does so in a bare endpoint format that offers little beyond the tool name. It fails to explain what running a prompt actually does or what the outcome is.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of related tools like list_prompts or generate_brand_interview_questions, nor any context about typical use cases.

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