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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it largely does not. It does not say whether the call fails when the id is unknown, whether it returns the current revision or all revisions, what permissions are needed, or anything about the response payload.

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?

One short sentence with the selector front-loaded and zero filler. There is no redundant or hedging wording to trim.

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 simple single-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the description still omits error behavior and what a 'prompt document' actually comprises. An agent knows the name of the operation but not what it will receive or how failures manifest.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By id' only confirms that promptId is an identifier rather than clarifying its expected format, its source, or whether it can be a revision id, which is left ambiguous next to prompt.list_revisions.

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: 'Fetch one prompt document by id'. It is clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings like prompt.list_for_scene and prompt.list_revisions, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 'by id' faintly implies the caller must already hold a promptId, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as prompt.list_for_scene when the id is unknown or prompt.list_revisions when revision history is wanted.

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