Get an Image3 prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add value beyond safety. It does: 'sanitized' signals the returned prompt is processed/cleaned, and 'its media' discloses the response includes associated media. No contradiction between description and annotations.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action and output are front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two provides routing guidance. Every word earns 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the definition covers the essential operation, the source of valid inputs, and the basic return shape (sanitized prompt plus media). No output schema exists, so the mention of return contents is the right compensation. Minor omissions like error behavior and pagination are not material for this simple tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the only parameter. It clarifies that slugOrId accepts either a slug or an id and that valid values come from search_prompts, which is meaningful beyond the bare string type. It stops short of describing the expected slug format or how id and slug resolution differ, but for a single simple parameter this is solid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource (a prompt from Image3), and adds qualifying detail: it returns one complete sanitized prompt and its media. The second sentence tells the agent to use an identifier from search_prompts, which distinguishes this tool from search operations. Nothing is left ambiguous about what the tool fetches.

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?

It explicitly states that the identifier must come from search_prompts, establishing the correct workflow — search first, then get. This is clear usage context, though it does not spell out when-not-to-use cases or name alternative tools beyond the implicit search_prompts dependency. A 5 rating would require explicit exclusions, so this lands at 4.

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