List prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable edge-case behavior: the response when no website is set up (setup guidance with empty payload) and the instruction not to invent dates or scores. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent concrete handling steps.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage guidance and edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes value, but it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, mixing guidance with edge-case instructions. It is still well-structured and not verbose enough to lose a point below 4.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, how to interpret it, when to use it, how to handle topic naming, and the no-website edge case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to add; the description does not waste space on non-existent parameters. It fully covers the absence of parameters without redundancy.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'tracked prompts' along with the specific data returned (visibility metrics, parent topicId, mentioned flag, per-prompt competitors). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_topics by specifying the added competitor and metric details, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Prefer after list_topics when you need specific query-level detail', naming the alternative and the condition. It also provides concrete guidance on matching topicId to list_topics and using the returned prompts array length for gap counts, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use this tool.

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