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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it states that nothing about the artifact changes, lists what is returned (title, description, viewer link), and discloses host-dependent rendering with an explicit fallback: hand the user the artifactUrl where no card appears. It also tells the agent how to respond afterward (summarize in a sentence, don't repeat contents), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and call cadence are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct operational point (triggers, return value, card-present behavior, card-absent behavior). It is a bit long for a one-parameter read tool, but no sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself, and it explains the conditional UI outcome an agent must reason about. Nothing needed to invoke or follow up on this tool is missing.

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 the single fileId parameter is already documented in detail, including the warning not to pass an embedded report file ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, 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 opening clause pairs a specific verb and resource ("Show a saved artifact") with the concrete mechanism ("inline card they can expand and scroll") and even the host condition. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_file, read_file, and get_artifact_report_context, which fetch data rather than render a user-visible card.

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?

It enumerates the exact triggering conditions: after create_artifact or update_artifact saves one, after generate_artifact's session reports a saved artifact, or when the user asks to see an existing one. It also constrains frequency ("Call it once"), which prevents duplicate calls, and names the sibling tools that precede it.

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