search_prompts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It implies the tool is safe (returns data, no side effects) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, lacks destructive consequences, or outline any rate limits. For a search tool, the description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences. It front-loads the critical usage guidance ('ALWAYS START HERE') and eliminates any unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 only three optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's role and what it returns. However, it could optionally mention that results might be paginated or include sorting, but this is not a critical omission.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions and examples. The tool description adds minimal new value beyond mentioning 'keyword, category, or tags,' which aligns with the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search' and resource 'prompts' with clear filtering criteria (keyword, category, tags). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings (get_prompt, create_github_prompt) by recommending this as the first step, making its purpose clear and differentiated.

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 description explicitly states 'ALWAYS START HERE' and 'recommended first step before using get_prompt or creating new prompts,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool and how it fits into the workflow (avoiding duplicates).

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