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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that setting include_content to true returns the full HTML content, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or error conditions. It adds some value but is not rich in transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the key parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential function and the optional include_content behavior. It could mention the return format or any caveats, but for a basic get operation, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value for include_content by explaining its effect ('also return the full HTML content'), but id is not further elaborated. Overall, it does not significantly go beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Get artifact metadata.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like publish and versions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 implies usage for retrieving artifact metadata, and it gives a hint about the include_content parameter, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like publish_site or versions. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, so it scores a 3.

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