get_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns rendered prompt text) but does not cover error handling for unknown names, how arguments are interpolated, or response structure beyond what the output schema implies.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fallback for clients without MCP prompt support') before stating the return behavior. Zero wasted words — every clause 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 simple renderer with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's existence (fallback) and its output. The only minor gap is error behavior on invalid prompt names, which is not critical for a straightforward lookup 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 100%, with both parameters well documented (name constrained to 'fund_provider_review', arguments with a ticker example). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('rendered prompt text'), and frames the tool's role as a fallback for clients without MCP prompt support. It is clearly distinct from all siblings, none of which relate to prompt rendering, so an agent can differentiate it without opening any other schema.

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 'Fallback for clients without MCP prompt support' phrasing gives concrete usage context — use this when the client lacks native prompt support. It does not explicitly name an alternative call or state when-not-to-use, but the fallback framing carries clear selection logic.

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