get_prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the brief 'Read-only' line is largely redundant, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: default ordering by answer count, pagination via limit/offset, the shape of the returned object, and the featured filter semantics. It does not mention result caps or failure modes, but for a simple read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

Front-loads purpose and ordering, then routing, then return shape, then next step – a sensible information hierarchy with no filler. The 'Read-only' sentence is the only line that does not earn its place given the annotation, keeping it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return envelope ({returned, offset, prompts}) and key fields (id, question, description, answers_count, books_count), which is exactly what the agent needs. Combined with the sibling routing and the set_prompt_answer handoff, nothing material is missing for a 3-param read 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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters (limit, offset, featured) are already documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of featured and pagination adds no syntax or constraint information beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list community book prompts) with a concrete example of what a prompt is, plus the default ordering (most answered first). It is clearly distinguishable from search_books, which it explicitly names as the retrieval-by-keyword alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use split: browse here vs. search_books(query_type='Prompt') to find by words in the question. It also chains forward by naming set_prompt_answer as the consumer of a prompt id, so the agent knows the follow-up action.

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