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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a UI-driven loader, but says nothing about what is returned (access list? the artifact payload?) or why it is marked non-idempotent, which is the one annotation trait that would benefit from explanation. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the identity of the tool front-loaded and the routing instruction immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter, read-only, internal tool with no output schema, the definition gives an agent everything needed to decide not to call it. The only missing piece is what the call actually returns or what happens if an agent calls it anyway, which is a minor gap given how strongly it is discouraged.

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% and the schema itself already warns that fileId must be the .artifact folder ID and never an embedded report file ID. The description adds no meaning 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 states a concrete action ('load the artifact it shows') and names its caller context (the artifact card) plus the sibling to use instead (show_artifact). An agent can tell it apart from show_artifact without opening either schema. Minor gap: the name says 'view access' while the description says 'load the artifact', leaving a small ambiguity about what is actually fetched.

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?

Explicitly says 'Not for direct use' and names the alternative ('call show_artifact to show an artifact'), which is a full when-not plus routing instruction. This is exactly the kind of exclusion guidance that prevents misuse of an internally-scoped tool.

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