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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it specifies the ordering (newest first) and the fields included in each item (id, title, who can open it, URL). No contradictions with annotations. It doesn't discuss pagination details, but the cursor parameter covers that.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and scope options. The second sentence adds concrete detail about the returned items without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), full parameter documentation in the schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the scope behavior, ordering, and item fields, leaving nothing essential missing. Pagination is handled by the cursor parameter, which the schema documents.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it reiterates the scope options and mentions the order, but these are also in the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't exceed that.

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 action (list) and resource (Artifacts), and differentiates itself from sibling listing tools by specifying the scope options (owned, shared, all) and the default. It also mentions the order (newest first) and what each item contains, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to list artifacts by ownership scope. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the scope options and the existence of sibling tools like list_presentations and list_artifact_threads imply differentiation. The description covers the primary usage scenario well.

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