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

Annotations already cover the read-only/no-destruction profile, so repeating "Read-only" adds little. However, the description discloses two behaviors the annotations do not: results are ordered "newest first" and bodies are excluded from the response. Those are meaningful traits beyond structured fields.

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?

Three tight clauses, the list behavior and filters are front-loaded, and every sentence adds something (scope, constraint, safety). No filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, but pagination (pageSize/pageToken) is undocumented in both schema and description, and the large kinds enum is only loosely referenced. For a filtered-list tool with only 25% schema coverage, this leaves gaps.

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 only 25%, so the description is expected to compensate. It does map "relationship, kind, and approval" to the nested filter fields, which is valuable, but says nothing about companyId or the pageSize/pageToken pagination parameters. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists artifacts") plus the filterable dimensions (relationship, kind, approval) and the key scope detail ("without their bodies"). An agent can distinguish this list operation from the single-artifact getter, though the sibling fundraising_get_artifact is not named explicitly.

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?

"Cite only an approved artifact" gives a governance caveat, and "without their bodies" implies a fetch-by-id tool is needed for full content, but neither the alternative (fundraising_get_artifact) nor an explicit when-to-use condition is stated. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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