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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context about cost and side effects ('Does not process a document; normally not billed'), which is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs, though it stays silent on response format and error behavior.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose, followed by the endpoint path. Every element is relevant, with only slight redundancy between the title and the opening clause.

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, single-parameter introspection tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete. The return value is itself a schema and no output schema is declared, so the only minor gap is the absence of any note on what the schema applies to downstream.

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 single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with pattern and length constraints, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what is structured, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and outcome: the JSON schema of one Prompt Builder configuration's output. It is clearly distinct from get_model_schema in wording, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast against that sibling, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Adds useful context that it 'Does not process a document; normally not billed,' which implies it is a cheap introspection call. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like get_model_schema or list_prompt_configurations, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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