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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it uses the authenticated owner and active organization, returns immutable text, and returns 404 for a missing or foreign prompt. That error and auth behavior is exactly what annotations cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded, with the 404 behavior and auth context each earning their place. The vague opener 'Preserve the complete prompt and license' is the one line that does not clearly pay for itself.

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 lookup with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: auth scope, immutability, and the 404 failure mode. Only the undocumented guest_token parameter and the exact returned payload shape leave a gap.

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 only 50%: the id parameter is documented in the schema ('Saved prompt ID from generation or the private list') but guest_token has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the undocumented half stays unexplained.

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 conveys that this returns an immutable saved prompt, and the name signals a read of a fix prompt, but the opening sentence 'Preserve the complete prompt and license' uses a non-retrieval verb that muddies what the tool actually does. It never states plainly that it fetches a saved prompt by ID, nor does it distinguish itself from get/generate siblings such as generate_fix_prompt or list_domain_fix_prompts.

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?

'Use it only for license.domain' and 'does not authorize deployments or infrastructure changes' give scope limits, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus generate_fix_prompt (create) or list_domain_fix_prompts (enumerate). The agent is given restrictions without a routing rule.

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